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

THE PICTURE BY TITIAN_

Mr. CHARTER'S asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
if there was any truth in the report that a picture, said to be
by Titian, which was recently purchased for the National
Gallery at Marshal Soult's sale for 2,400/., was last year in
the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to
several of the trustees, who then might have purchased it for
1,200/. ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was
no proof that a picture in the possession of a London dealer,
and said to have been purchased by Marshal Soult, was
shown to the trustees of the National Gallery, and offered to
them for 1,290/. It was quite true that a picture,
undoubtedly by Titian, and which had been purchased by the
National Gallery, was for sale in London recently, and was
seen by a friend of his; but he was not aware that that pic-
ture had been omsred to the National Gallery for 1,2001. But
he must observe that nothing was more delusive as to the
real value of a picture than the fact of its acquisition by a
private individual at a particular price. He knew of a picture
by Murillo which had been recently sold for 24,009/. sterling,
which had bean offered to a distinguished individual well
known to many Hon. Members in that House only a few
years ago for 8,0001. There were very few pictures of emi-
nent merit that did not find their price in, London at the
very top of the scale. It was impossible that the picture in
question had been offered at a less sum than the trustees of
the National Gallery took it at. But the country had given
2,4001. for it, and he believed that they had purchased a
very valuable picture at a moderate price.
PRIVATE BILLS.

Sir R. PRICE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, in case of private Bills being prevented from passing
the House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament,
any steps would be taken to facilitate their being passed in
the next Pullen lent, so that the great expense incurred in
respect to them, up to their present stages, might not be
thrown away?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
not in the power of the present Parliament to facilitate the
passing of these. Bills in the next Parliament. No doubt
the indulgence which the Parliament of 1831 had afforded
would be given by the new Parliament. At the same time,
the Hon. Member must feel that the circumstances must be
of a very pressii ig character to justify such a course.
72HE MAYNOOTH GRANT.

Mr. M. GIBBON wished to ask a question of the Chan-
cellor of the Es.chequer with regard to the employment of
the time of thiii House and the dispatch of public business.
They had still got the Maynooth question hanging over
them, and after a whole morning had been devoted to it,
they were still as far from the termination of the debate as
ever. He wistted, therefore, to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, who was the trustee of the 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. Memberfor Warwick-
shire to induce him to postpone all further proceedings to a
more convenient season.

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

In answer to a question from Sir G. CLERK respecting
the oyster fisheries,
Mr. HENLEY said. he would pay every attention to the
subject, and endeavour whether he could see his way to a
relaxation of the law to enable parties to fish in the months
of May and June without weakening the object for which
the law had been passed—namely, the prevention of poach-
ing on the fisheries. The papers to which the Right lion.
Baronet alluded should be laid on the table to-morrow.
THE REV. MR. BENNETT.

Mr. HORSMA.N, on rising to move CraSelect Committee
to inquire into the circumstances connected with the insti-
tution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, said
that when, on the 20th of April last, he moved—
`. That an humble address be presented to her Majesty,
praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct inquiry
to be made whether due respect was paid to the decrees of
the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of
England is the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to
the vicarage of Frome,"
the object of that motion could not have been misunderstood.
It clearly was to make inquiry into the act of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, for which he alone was responsible, in insti-
tuting a presentee against whom certain allegations been
made, in spite of those allegations and of the evidence is
prove them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the
part of her Majesty's Government, moved the amendment,
showed he did not misunderstand the object of the motion,
for he opposed it on grounds of a twofold nature ; first, that
the mode of redress proposed was inadequate; and next,'
that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act
of the Bishop. The Right Hon. Gentleman said : •

" I cannot help believing that there must be an appeal
from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of
the Church to the Archbishop. If, then, there be an appeal
to the Archbishop, if the conduct and decisions of the prelate
aro subject to that superior revision, that surely must be
a reason wby the House of Commons should not interfere
before that appeal has taken place, and, in lieu of having re-
course to such a tribunal, should not substitute a means
which is confesLedly so inadequate to obtain the result which
is desired."

But the House was not satisfied with the grounds taken by
the Right Honourable Gentleman, and various Members ex-
preised their belief that the question could not be disposed
of in that manner; the Hon. Member for North Warwick-
shire in particular, who, expressing the sentiments of those
around him, said—

" He was, however, quite certain that, the question having
been raised, the 'country would demand that it should be
fully investigated; this was a question which, having been
raised, must be dealt with.".

Anotlier member of the Cabinet, the Secretary for the Colo-
nies, rose subsequently, and said he concurred in the views of
the Hon. Member who had spoken, and that he—
" Felt not only that this was a question which ought to be
raised, but that, having been raised, it ought to be dealt with ;
and he would say for himself, as he believed he might say for
every member of her Majesty's Government, that the matter
ought not to rest in its present position, but that unquestion-
ably inquiry ought to be made, and a remedy ought to be
provided."

The Noble Lord the Member for the city of London declined
to vote for an address to the Crown, on the grounds,—first,
that there might be an appeal to the Archbishop, as the
Right lion. Gentleman had stated; next, that they did not
know the character of the certificate of the Bishop of Bath
and Wells had received from the Bishop of London ; and,
thirdly, that he wished to leave the inquiry in the hands of
Government. The Noble Lord said : _ _

" Let them at some further day declare whether they
have found any mode of inquiry that is satisfactory, and let
them lay any facts they may ascertain before the House.
Until that period arrives I cannot consent to be a party to
an address to the Crown."
His Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the same
grounds in opposing the. motion, 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
promise a judicial inquiry, but he would promise that there
should be a bona fide one."
After a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
laid before them a report of the result—not of an inquiry,
but of what Government had undertaken in the matter—to
which he would not further refer, as it would be extremelyear
inconvenient to embarrass the HMSO in considering a far
greater and more important question by, any reference to
the course of proceedings, or to the opinions of her Ma-
jesty's Government. Only a few nights ago he had stated his
views by way of a question to the Attorney-General on the
state of the law in this case, and the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman stated, that supposing that there was a complaint
against Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful how far Mr. Bennett
could be made amenable under the Church Discipline Act;
first, on account of the 20th clause, which covered offences
committed further back than two years ; and next, because
there would be a difficulty in taking cognizance of an offence
committed abroad; but, as against the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, it was admitted there was no redress whatever
against his institution of Mr. Bennett, and no statute or
court by which it could be challenged. The Attorney-
General seemed to think he (Mr. Horsman) had cast a cen-
sure upon the Government for their conduct, while another
Hon. Member was of opinion he had acquitted Government
of all blame whatever. But he had neither done one nor the
other; for his dsire was to avoid the expression of any
opinion whatever, and if he found the Ministry acting UP
to the declaration they had made, that the question should
be investigated, he and the public would be quite satisfied;
while, on the other hand, if they endeavoured to make it a
party question, and to bring the influence of Government to
bear to defeat the motion, he, and he believed the public
also, would arrive at a very diferent conclusion. He wished
to discuss the question now without the smallest admixture
of party feeling. On a former occasion be had stated fully
the whole of the facts with respect to the Rev. Mr. Bennett,
but questions had been raised by his friendiyand some things
had been especially misunderstood by the Noble Lord the
Member for the county of Down. He seemed to think he
(Mr. Horsman) had stated Mr. Bennett was no longer in
communion with
wwiittizh
the
0%1
Qoff Egtd,zydr:hiaa:lllacie was