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

THE PICTURE BY TITIAN_

Mr. CHARTERIS 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 2,4001., was last year in
the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to
several of the trustees, who then might have purchased it for
1,200/. ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was
to proof that a picture in the possession of a London dealer,
and said to have been purchased by Marshal Soult, was
shown to the trustees of the National Gallery, and offered to
them for 1,2001. It was quite true that a picture,
undoubtedly by Titian, and which had been purchased by the
National Gallery, was for sale in London recently, and was
seen by a friend of his ; but he was not aware that that pic-
ture had been offered to the National Gallery for 1,2001. 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 24,003/. sterling,
which had been offered to a distinguished individual well
known to many Hon. Members in that House only a few
years ago for 8,000/. 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
2,400/. for it, and he believed that they had purchased a
very valuable picture at a moderate price.
PRIVATE BILLS.

Sir R. PRICE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, in case of private Bills being prevented from passing
the House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament,
any steps would be taken to facilitate their being passed in
the next Parliament, so that the great expense 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 pressing character to justify such a course.
THE MAYNOOTII GRA'.
Mr.M. ; GIBSON wished to ask a question of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer with regard to the employment of
the time of this House and the dispatch of public business.
They had still got the Maynooth question hanging over
them, and after a whole morning had been devoted to it,
they were still as far from the termination of the debate as
ever. He wished, therefore, to ask the Right Hon. Gentle.
man, who was the trustee of the public for the proper appli-
cation of the public time, whether he did not think it fit for
him to use his influence with the Hon. Member for Warwick-
shire to induce him to postpone all further proceedings to a
more convenient season.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he
felt his duty at present to be in unison with the statement
which he had already made to the House, namely, to take
care that all those measures to which the Government were
bound should be passed this session with due deference
to the great consummation which they all awaited.—
(Laughter.) That he acknowledged was itself a difficult,
though he would not say an impossible task, but he must
decline, with respect to the subject of Maynooth, to under-
take that which the 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 Hon.
Baronet alluded ahould be laid on the table to-morrow.

THE REV. MR. BENNETT.
Mr. HORSMAN, on rising to move for a Select Committee
to inquire into the circumstances connected with the insti-
tution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, said
that when, on the 20th of April last, he moved—
'• That an humble address be presented to her Majesty,
praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct inquiry
to 6e made whether due respect was paid to the decrees of
the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of
England in the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to
the vicarage of Frome,"
the object of that motion could not have been misunderstood.
It clearly was to make inquiry into the act of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, for which he alone was responsible, in insti-
tuting a presentee against whom certaia allegations had been
made, in spite of those allegations and of the evidence to
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
are subject to that superior revision, that surely must be
a reason why the House of Commons should not interfere
before that appeal has taken place, and, in lieu of having re-
course to such a tribunal, should not substitute a means
which is confessedly so inadequate to obtain the result which
is desired."

But the House was not satisfied with the grounds taken by
the Right Honourable Gentleman, and vaaious Members ex-
pressed their belief that the question could not be disposed
of in that manner; the Hon. Member for North Warwick-
shire in particular, who, expressing the sentiments of those
around him, 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."
Another member of the Cabinet, the Secretary for the Colo-
nies, rose subsequently, and said he concurred in the views of
the.,
Flleottn.noMt eomnblyerthwahtothhia,,dwsapsoakecinu,
easntidonthwaht
ihche—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 Hon. Geatleman 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. Tho Noblo Lord said ;
" Let them at some further day declare whether they
have found any mode of inquiry that is satisfactory, and let
them lay any facts they may ascertain before the House.
Until that period arrives I cannot consent to be a party to
an address to the Crown."
His Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the same
grounds in opposing the motion And showed he under-
stood it to be directed against 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
shouldpr om is ebae a
judicial
bondfi inquiry,
one."but. he would promise that there

After a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
laid before them a report of the result—not of an inquiry,
but of what Government had undertaken in the matter—to
which he would not farther refer, as it would be extremely
inconvenient to embarrass the House 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 accouit 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; bat, 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
lion. 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 different conclusion. He wished
to discuss the question 110 W without the smallest admixture
of party feeling. On a former occasion he had stated fully
the whole of the facts with respect to the Rev. Mr. Bennett,
but questions had been raised by his friends, and some things
had been especially misunderstood by the Noble Lord the
Member for the county of Down. He seemed to think he
(Mr. llorsman) had stated Mr. Bennett was no longer in
communion with the Church of England, and that he was in
communion with the Church of Rome. Now, he had Lugo

WEDNESDAY

;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 lever 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 bad gone over to
Rome who had used that phrase, and two occurred to him
at the moment—Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Man-
ning.—(Hear, hear.) It had been represented that he had
founded his statements respecting the proceedings of Mr.
Bennett abroad on the evidence of one person, but, had he
believed the inquiry would not have been granted, he
would not have limited his evidence to one person. That
gentleman had been placed in a most awkward position, but,
in order to show the spirit in which he wrote, he would
quote a passage from his letter, which would show he had
very different feelings from those attributed to him. He
wrote as follows:
" The best evidence on this point, it seems to me, would
be that of the English chaplain, whose name I forget, but
who must be mentioned in the 'Clergy List,' or at any event
in Graville's Spas of Germany.' If any evidence to this
extent, which is all I can with call aver, can be avail-
able in corroboration, I have no objection to give it; but
I should object most strongly to being brought forward
alone if not better supported,
must
less any legal authorit suchyeivaihdence alone no bishop, still
which,
condemn him. It is only from
fail.top rol,eur a,
upon charge,
a fervent zeal for the cause of the Gospel truth and an
intense disgust at the l'aypocrisy of the man, that in any
event I should like to bring charges, which, exclusive of
ipspi°enaraonfcdeuot that would necessitate them, must
f underhand observation. In fact, I
httohaoevke theen°nother notice of these parties than such as a person
exceedingly ill is forced to pay to those whose inconsiderate
noisiness is the source of constant annoyance to an invalid."
And again, a week after, he wrote :
" I have thus stated the whole that I can conscientiously
testify on this point. Being then, as now, very ill, I should
not have noticed Mr. Be nnett at all but for dm 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.
Peter's, I gave him but very little attention, never thinking
it likelytall
any evidence of mine. To be obliged to give any evidence
a
against that Romanisrn would require to be testified by
himhis is naturally very unpleasant to me, con-
sidering the manner in whicfi my observations were shade;
and if these observations are to be made use of as the
groundwork of any overt proceedings against him, I must
abeg that the promoters of such proceedings will first amply
substantiate my statements, which can be done with ease,
by obtaining the testimony of other residents (there were
about forty English there at th e time) of the English chap-
lain, and any of the innumerable persons about the Roman
Catholic Church, who must have had daily opportunities of
witnessing his attendance. If this be done, and it can be
done with very little trouble or cost, I have not a doubt that
the result would be to prove indisputably, that while at Kis-
singen, at least, there being in the place an English church
and English service, he voluntarily attended by preference
the Roman Catholic."
After the speech which he (Mr. Horsman) delivered,
Mr. Stutzer wrote a further letter, which would best
show what his feelings were, in which was the follow-
ing letter :
"It seems to me that the simple course, if Mr. Bennett
deny what I believe on my honour to be undoubtedly true,
is to send to Kissingen, where conclusive evidence can be
easily got. There must be some 50 or 100 persons, at
the very least, who can say positively that they have seen
or not seen him at mass. I have already stated the amount
of evidence I can give, I have been dragged into this most
unpleasant business by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt; bat,
being in it, I feel bound to substantiate every syllable that
I have advanced, and with that view I should not only be
willing, but glad to pay the whole expenses of any person
who can go over to Kissingen and settle the whole. But it
seems to me, that the question could be much more easily
decided. Does Mr. Bennett deny the fact of his constant
attendance at the Roman 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. tdr
John Harrington was wills 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 slid 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 Home.
Ile could have stated that Mr. Bennett's proceedings
and conduct had been notorious, and that he was pub-
lished in the Roman Catholic Directory as having been re-
ceived into the Church of Rome.—(Oh, oh !) Though that
was a work of great circulation, it was not a work of autho-
rity; but 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 an
altar, and that this stone was set up when they halted; and,
Mr. Bennett officiating as a priest, performed religious ser-
vice before it. It was known that in the Roman Catholic
Church evey Roman Catholic priest must carry about with
hint a small consecrated stone for an altar, wherever he
went, but such a thing was unknown in the Protestant
Church. He would now state why he felt the evidence, on the
authority of Mr. Pratt and his letter, was the most proper
evidence that could have been adduced. It was a rule in this
House that where a charge was made against an individual,
the person bringing the charge should be extremely careful
as to the character of the evidence he adduced, particularly
that he should bring forward none which should be unfair to
the party accused ; and during the last five years, in all the
motions which he (Mr. Horsman) had made upon ecclesias-
tical subjects, he had invariably stated that the evidence
upon which he based his motions had been always published
evidence known to the world, and generally taken from re-
turns and reports laid upon the table of the House. So, in
this instance, setting aside
the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a
strong fact that Mr. Bennett'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 even assuming that he had not, it was, at all events, a
strong fact that Mr. Pratt's letter should remain entirely un-
noticed, for he was in a position to show that this letter had
been brought under Mr. Bennett's attention. Before the insti-
tution of that gentleman it would be remembered that there
natdodorkessed the following letter to Mr. Bennett. The
was a good deal of excitement at Fronts, and when the in-
place, Mr. Hastings, one of the clergy of
place on the 24th of January, and this
letter was written on the 31st :
sintris°tti-iiiiittuji ion took

" enclosedlt ectory ,
letterT r ow brl
~ Rev. Sir,—The(thisdge,wJasan.th3el,llBs2.
corded from the Achill Miss• n 7 letter of
Mr. Pratt) I have
of this month. You may a not have the opportunityarjf seeing
a near neighbour lephyave felt it to be
the paper, and consequently be unable tor l to it.a As a
against you, and the scandal occasioned
mbryotdhuertyclteorgnyimakaon;ontid
acquainted with the serious charge
f may I hope you will not think me
officious or obtrusive in calling your attention to the sub-
ject ? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in
the statement,
I am, Rev.
air, yours faithfully, •
.‘ Rev. W. Bennett.
had been a lergy "
Now, if Mr. Bennett
orthodoxy there J. D. IladaTurNavrsZo'se
was no actual doubt,e clergyman
regarding
lwhom re-
ports had originated ewin t
ought to have been thankful
report; and certainly . -
with his antecedents,contradicting that Mr. Bennett,
ofora
such continental
a a
opportunity residence,
_mear.s ought to have felt
himself bound to
with no
reply. •
) That letter, however, met
when he wrote this second letter :
answer it.r.r
Hastings waited until the 12th of February,'
" Rectory, Trowbridge, Feb. 12, 1852.
~ Rev. Sir -...0
to ' -0 Saturday, a letter you, directed ' Vicarage,
3 Frorne."The object of
that communication
English newspapers. was to afford you an opportunity of see-
, letter signed, .Y, the 31 tof January, I addressed
ilek•;l!,ted, ane ' John 0. N. Pratt,' a copy of which I
wlileh has since appeared in aavarat of
.the
of much
hood, and I conversation among the clergy of the neighbour-
your hbour-
your authority,had hoped in writing to you to be enabled,. on
to This letter was naturally the subject
to ire
- r silence, however, so opposed to the courtesy
by which
con-
tained. you contradict the statements therein con-
your co
Church oeE
the des' d ° conclude that it is not in your power to afford
compels me t conduct as I am informed,. is characterised,
confirm
those who were willing to pass over what had oc-
curredtertainin explanation. I regret this the more as it tends
your former parish in the adverse opinion they en •
ed respecting your appointment to any office in the
of the ngland, inasmuch as your preference for the ser-
vices, e Church of Rome, which you have publicly and
B_°.llPlll,Y declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters
of faith,
has
thrown contempt upon that Church, whose faith
his letter to him
()chine in your ordination vows you promised to give
I faithful diligence always' to minister and teach.
" I am, Reverend Sir, yours faithfully,
4' J. D. Hasumtas."
That leher again received no answer whatever. What con-
c."l" would any man draw from such sileace 2—Meer,
hear.) Dir. Hastings drew his own conclusion, and this was
~ Rectory, Trowbridge, April 24, 1852.
observe,
" l‘ly dear Sir,—Enclosed are copies of the letters pro-
mised;th You are at liberty to make what use you please of
(Mr. llorsman) on the subject:.—
Pll. I may
my object in writing them was to
auord Mr. Bennett an opportunity of contradicting the
report of his attendance upon the Roman worship in
preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly
as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me
to call upon him that his views were very much changed.
It 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. O. N. Pratt's letter appeared,
and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with
Mr. Bennett on the subject. lam truly sorry, that by his
taking no notice of either letter, he has left an impression on
my mind, 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 which belongs to a brother clergyman coming
into the neighbourhood.
"I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,
"J. D. 1.1.4.auxG5."
Now, put aside altogether the evidence which he (Mr.
Ilorsman) gave the other day as to the conversations of Mr.
Bennett, and here was the fact that a letter was published
in, and went the round of all the newspapers, stating pub.
licly that Mr. Bennett never entered the Protestant church
when at Kissingen, but was a regular attendant at mass,
and that this letter was enclosed to Mr. Bennett by a brother
Clergyman in a friendly, kindly, and brotherly spirit, and
when it was known that no notice was taken of the comma.
nication, and no such explanation as that which the
circum-
stances required was given, the fact must leave a conviction
upon the mind of every impartial man that the statement
was true.—(Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Ilorscrian) asked
whether, if he had had the choice of flyer 49 Lug h • now
g OPltlence