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

TIIE „ SUN, LONDON, WEDNEsp4,3c,r -trEVENING, JUNE , IE34

man before now build up in that House fabrics of accuse-
against particular prelates of the Established Church,
Which, When examined, had turned out to be splendid exag-
gerations.— (" Hear bear," from Mr. Horsman.) He might
refer to the Horfield manor case.— (Question. ) The Hon.
and Leareed Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in
leaking his elaborate accusation, and surely the House would
"'tend its indulgence to him while he attempted to answer
,r hear.) In the case alluded to ehe Hon. and
Learned. Afember had, utterly failed; ih every,material point
Ili the charges which he made against the Bishops of. Glous
eater.— had for (Hear,' hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
a long time taken on himself the functions of an ac-
4:tate clergy. In 1828, when the Hon. and Learned
was en elder of the Presbyterian Church, he
ode charges against the eminent and excellent Dr. Chal-
mers, which obliged Dr. Chalmers to resort to the press.—
(e "ljear," from Mr.'Horsman.) He admired the cheer of the
Learned and Learned Gentleman. No • doubt. the Hon. and
Gentleman:thought Dr. Chalmers as much.in :the
Dells
that occasion as he thought the Bishop of Bath an
e:lls in thia. But` the fact wail that' Dr. Chalmers was
obliged to publish an answer for the purpose of demonst!eit-
'ge_tne unsoundness of what he called the aerial accusations
4,,Lueand*Learned Gentle Man. The Hon. and Learned
sn'ntleinan had taken coil himself the character of a pu
ic
Nirser of the clergy, and was bound to be accurate in the
sesangnage he •d to take care that the views he pre-
Toted of a callseBe used,
up to the standard •ef facts. If the
11; and Learned Gentleman would embark in discussions
I oiletr,,ng great legal knowledge, he was bound to avoid
eae—c"ing unfounded charges, and to take care that the
',,-;neiPles on which he proceeded •were sound. The Hon.
41s-el eLearned Gentleman had put the House in a dilemma
likebe could not accept. The Hon. and Learned Gent e-
Said that either the House was a fit place for a debate
bushed
present, or else there ought not to be an Este-
etseed Church: He trembled to the dilemma, but
Zhfeared it was just possible for them to have an Established
at." 1463, and, yet that that House might not be the fitting
fir
for the discussion like the present.—(Hear.) Speaking
tiorth;lllself; be did nokscruple to say that that
.House.. was
here fitting arena for such discuseions. He admitted that
tee— might have been—nay, what was more important—
at there had been some cases of foul play ; that the Church
tf
at
tngland was rent from head to foot with her divisions;
ehe asked them, apart from all interests of his own, or of
: cif!Y, whether they thought that religions divisions
of theel to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds
el„ Church were likely to be healed, by rhetorical decla-
sta7inn, by exaggeration, and by misapprehension and mis-
toi„'eendeets of fact ? (Hear.) It might be that he himself
iotgt, err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un-
veil; ttclnai, for he had the deepest sense of the mischief
ailcinti arose from such a source.—(Hear, hear.) If the lion.
ligi Learned Gentleman knew anything of the nature of re-
one side partisanship he must know that heat and violence on
her,, engendered heat and violence on the other.—(Hear,
wet He believed that if the influence of Mr. Bennett
lope In question, there would be ne better mode of increase
o' lid propagating that influence than by singling him
for attack, if that attack were coloured by religious feel-
eim•ga• That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole
ee—hues, if they wished to neutralise the evils of such dis-
li-4)nre—(Hear, hear.) The first point which called for
tit attention was whether the country was to be governed,
oDee• " in ecclesiastical or in civil matters, by the private
the7eetie of particular men, according to their popularity for
mereuinrnent, or by a system of fixed laws ?—(Hear, hear.)
was to be governed by private opinion, and if that House
eina: to become the means of making such private opinion
*egg in ,matters of religion, representative institutions
endLe become a nuisance, and ecclesiastical questions would
nat they were in fact, the bane and plague of the House
thef the country.—(Hear, hear.) But he maintained that
eel Were not there to decide what was in the abstract
the it. They had to decide one or two questions. First, had
to i;,„ews been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought
(lee- ebnYed ; and if not good they ought to be altered.
leor, bear.) They had no right to establish any extra
reigh, system of influence or jurisdiction by which they
ore"i°Perate on the regular operation of the law. It must
itelividn its own fixed course, irrespective of the opinions of
Was n, Tbat was he first principle he laid down. It
presenn,riai to keep into ew the person before them in the
instance. The speech of the Honourable and
tion'ed Gentleman had a good deal cleared up that ques-
, as 61;13 be understood the case, the person whose conduct
,nishon',„'nre them was the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As ca
'ionere "e, Was a great officer of state, and he agreed with the
field er4ole and Learned Gentleman indeed he had long
;ale ete 'Opinion—that it was a great absurdity that our
niahoe enid not afford the means of correccing a delinquentYiee, re(ilettr, hear.) He frankly owned that he should
for th."lta the greatest favour any judicious proposition
With purpose of providing such means.—(Hear, hear.)
Isieehreseect to the Bishop of Bath and
wash point
tibit en hn wished to put to the House simply
teceen ew'rea not a delinquent bishop, and ,that not even a
Line). -.1,1,4c2e- case of delinquency had • been made out against
thise'uat being so, let them put aside the other charges
of the -ea% They had nothing to do with the proceedings
pleas, Patron. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had ex-
the Y cbeelairned casting any imputation on the conduct of
to r:t. tron.
The lion. and Learned Gentleman had omitted
great n" element to which every patron ought to pay
Itho:ttention, and that was the feeling of the people over
o col
and esanY particular pastor was placed. Though the lion.
iarried
, Member had dealt with the facts as best he
lybeeeell: had admitted that in this particular case—through
rfeeti'r Peculiarity or delusion—the people of Frome were
or Y satisfied with what the patron had done.—(Mr.
eslnota,nt,l76. No, no.") The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
0 ale en, admit that the people of Frome were satisfied.
from Mr. Horsman.) The lion. and Learned
`neile.-euati throughout the whole of his first speech, and even
riseirt, bad represented the objectors as the clergy and pa-
lillsee9„eera,olProme. Now, it was not a fact that they were
I'u aeleni• Rightly or rongly, they were satisfied with
uaelierPuintinent, and were grateful for it. lie held in his
kilea letter of the churchwardens, which, if the House
name Permit, he would read.—(Cries of " Name.") The
the
datWas cries,of " Hear, hear")—and
ember was the 17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned
Ise, 44(1 brought forward his first motion on the subject.- It
43 toll ressed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was
os:

it FAO ME VICARAGE,:
Frome,
I, April 17.
of I,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
teed to -,..ordship's letter of yesterday's date, and will
.pro-
tt hliscaNyer the inquiries. therein contained, fully, fairly,
lihex Partially. The appointment of Mr. Bennett is not
ho ldiyettionable to the body of the parishioners. This I
.111habit—Tt i this I am prepared boldly to maintain.
.The
re the hots
et. great obligations
n Frome are under many and
111113, -use of Thynne, and there is none they more cheer-
lessiurgschognise or more gratefully a preciate than the
noble r -Mowed on them in the regaerddPminanifested by that
nominating Mr.
'elinet4nldY for their spiritual go
fear
or t vicar of Frome. I assert, and without the slightest
rein.-41 contradiction, that since Mr. Bennett commenced his
stte.isr.3' the morning congregation have increased at least
*ere.o.. '`) _d, and that as to the
bevleedni
within g servicesthe, there never
'ejer:many persons assemt
ee walls of St.
lculation last Sun even-
lag 4 uhurch. e lowes
fraetll,.P 2,000. ATt h the commencement many have by een at.
cif 41," by curiosity and the love of novelty, but at the end
%I n..'" months there is not only no diminution, but the
jt
wb'egation is increased and increasing."h
a the sentiments of
th,, as not right, therefore, to _ 57
vetr-ridden in appol),.P a Frame had been
Get,' °t Mr. Bennett.--(Hear, hear.) 'The Hon. and Learned
th. flernan denied that- the churchwarden bad represented
for sentiments sentiments of the people, but it was right. he should in-
of Ink the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that in a postcript
'go letter it was stated that the parishioners, in vestry
ks,.
p„'elbled, had re-elected the writer of the letter church-
rrrden. It appeared that under the guidance. of certain
I.,„srgymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint-
Zetit of Mr.,Bennett. Of these 54, only 16 belonged to the
itish church to which Mr. Bennett had been appointed;.
it-',`' of these 16 one-half had returned to the church
.w.ithin
'evr weeks after Mr. Bennett was inducted. One circum-
atet,
h; te of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with
ptr-ostyart of the question.. One person of the 54 who had
krlted,was taken 11 and his first act was te send for
he Bennett ennett, and ha diedl receiving his ministration.—(Hear,
fetiit(n The , patron,
.therefore, was vindicated so far. ast the
said that ' the parishioners was concerned. It migh
their k,. their approval was only a proof of the depth of
a . uundness He was not authorised to give any
I,eeotint •
but - of Mr. Bennett's sentiments. Indeed he had
ni.. a slight acquaintance with
-.it, -„,. him. l Tahnedremwigehrte,
perveuon. Members who. knew hini.intimate y,
the ir,Ql-is, be able to speak. on that point. Instead of taking
ear„'lletieed and exaggerated view which the Hon. and
had ""d Gentleman had done of everything that Mr. Bennett
th- LlEtid, and assuming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was
hiejlne man that he was, he must say that the address to
1114 t jr°Dl the parishioners of FrOme was a demonstration
tondo'ed him to the encouraging hope that Mr. Bennett had
tveted himself wisely and discreetly in his pari.h, and
lit, wh
'hick
ether like other men, he might rock in the troubles
ihe'ch surrounded them=he was steady in his allegiance to
otit Uharch of England, and faithful in the discharge of his
It' j'' " a minister of that Church.—(Rear, hear.) That
pads rational inference to draw• when they found the whole
It
eh approving of Mr. Bennett's doctrines and discipline.
pia Sealed to him that the accusations against Mr. Bennett di-
e,,`'.,eSl themselves into two classes, the first relating to his pro-
ceedings at Kissengen—the second to his published works.
ettis. Proceedings in London were not, and could not be, the
to Jett of inquiry. The Ron. and Learned Member seemed
„_Lhink that the proceedings at Kissengen ought to have
r'ented the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituting Mr.
tot,
, et t. With respect to the proceedings at Kissengen he
'44
ita„ ICA aware of the state of the,case, except in one very
etri.t..ant particalar. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
I)F;satiaed that if Mr. Bennett did not appear at the.
isitVBll church at Kis.sen en it proved that he was un
am 41.1 to the English
tatiti,,earned
Gentleman .must have forgotten that_
,M .
(14,eft, was travelling as ch.a
tiet, r..; As to th P the Hon. and Learncl-G_ _
lain to a private famile.—
ja an
.ha,, e story which
jaynett- '' told them of the stone for an altheirinwhhiechmtlert.
h"ev wi as said to have carried about with t.
ilesthrn.etia
~,,,'tneelaivtie nothin -Hear.) Even if the Hon. and
,ea. i_
&mat
raTan. should. bneeaebelee
tetorseuep,paoerett
the
clones" itr-ilvished the House K
ss.n histhate ttahteemp reon-,
jaish°Piltrat °f. tile Bennett at
of Bathi iangdenvirdeildie..n_o(the_
9,tatn3 affect
t Mr.•-Bennett
f3.,11 accouri 44) Power to take'any steps alt
ofwere done Ili th,,,-- Y,' sech proceedings,j because they x
th disseniAt%sdictio of our ecclesiastical law._(-
had been
be-
coaisi--**l '-'verl. 1 the Bishop of Bath and Wells pressions
he co nt q Such ' not
1 ttld lia,e
takenroceedtin he did not believe thaet
A eTahe
jle
.ong
beagooliitane ege,with regard to them.
citedPien support of his opinion. _ . e
4611:sP4Ptit Neel had preached in a Presbyterian church, h
don irc:l 4t Inverness. The attention of the Bishop of Lon-
*tie ,8 Called to the fact, but it was found not to be an
701 ft,,h.,..i,abl by
.Itirgs,;-" 01.0 n. eanil lw.
Learned Gentleman had made three
PllrPosuat the Bishopproceeded in undue haste and in.
11.1 tat 00 event the parishioners having a fair hearing ,
b•rt hoc, Proceeded without the proper certificate ; and
i,,03. thatded without due examination. It appeared to
-°lted each and eve one of those charges was without
the at._ -,_,
qeet'irtioti •-tint.firstrYof all let them realise to themselves
Attbiniaßishop. The Honourabhle aknaddeLoenartn:ids
eet, 1',,111 the first statement which
itithops,
wahu proceeded entirely on the asesnnm.ption that
~.se law. 4 .L.,cla they received
"'Pt er r • -"lgland with large discretionary
presentee..., w e rpe 0 Tevrees tteed
abey.
to efect the
vell, Meg, i 1
That
ordination, the bishops .power
In• was not the case. With respect
bads iiiil,4_l. matters of
t, ord4l".e'-ed a and if it could be shown that a bishop
(114 he -would be u departed from his
an who was illioatviqugalified for the =me-
et
ty. tut
what
wregardedthe
natasure of the law on the subject,be
1,104b.s bishop's -powers with respect to presentedes?orele
or
his ii 47d Learned
re__ talons - Gentleman had perhaps im
con-
, on this sub from Scotland, where e _
porte
hs
hi3cd a setter Jed
stem prevailed.
fact „,, _ . system
people a
fair
~.1Wa3.8 been studious to give to the
the uPPortunity of stating The law of Scotland
objections to presentees, and, on.
objet h,ile, the practice had beenj to give a [air scope to such tiioile_ But that
t4aricl. 'The inspiringwidaes had been
t
a neoftthtehleawspeifrEi n o fanthde law of
'vibe with every security the patron's right
11_ : . yowson and the inchoate right of the prFsen r
The pint of the law in well. to presteene.
D'rerned countries like ou

own became the spirit of theacourte,of law, and, a 5 in the
case of mortmain, thejealousNof the Legislature Was guarded
by the rigid- interpretion given to. ether statutes'eley- the
courtelof law. In the same way the courts had viewed
with the utmost jealousy the civil rights of the patrons and
the inchoate right of a -presentee. The power of the bishop
' was narrow by law; and narrower according to practice,
and every act of a patron was scrutinised with the utmost
jealousy in order to give effect to what the law favoured,
and to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was
the Bishop to refuse admission to a presentee because he
had.written a work which did not meet his views, or be-
cause. he interpreted the oath of supremacy differently from
the bishop? Was the Bishop of Bath and Wells to refuse
admission to Mr. Bennett because virtually, but not-legally,
the Bishop of London hadaexpelled him from his benefice,
or because some fifty persons in Frome had addressed
him not to institute. Mr. Bennett! If the Bishop of Bath
and. Wells had so acted he would have been forthwith
brought into the Queen's Bench, and it would have been
no justification of his conduct •if he bad told the judges
that he had refused -admission to Mr. Bennett because
the ,Bishop of' London had disapproved_ of his conduct.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells would have been called on
by the court to prove that Mr. Bennett was disqualified
either on the ground of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct,
or insufficient learning.—(Hear, hear.) Except on these
grounds the Bishop would have no locus etandi in a court of
la*. From the Statement of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman one would have supposed that his doctrine of a
strict examination of a presentee was very popular in this
country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of
it. So far back as 1624, the House appointed a Committee
to inquire into the conduct of one of the bishops, who, was
afterwards Archbishop. of York, and the Committee reported
that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his
not havine inducted them had been to the great injury of the
patron. The House had, no doubt, in their recollection the
recent case of the Bishop of Exeter and the presentation to
Brarnpford Speke. The ruinous and crushing costs of these
ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons from engag-
ing in them. He believed the Bishop of Exeter had learnt
that fact by hard experience. In another case, in which the
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy-
man for immorality, the cost to the Bishop was not less than
4,2091. Justice, he hoped, ought to be done even to a
Bishop, and these things ought not' to be forgotten
when their incomes were alluded to. - He bad stated
that if the Bishop of Bath and Wells bad refused to
admit Mr. Bennett he might have been called into court
by a writ of quare impedit, and if he failed to establish
heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient- learning • against
Mr.'Bennett, he would have been condemned to pay costs.
The other mode of proceeding was the duplex querela. Ac-
cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques-
tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the
Committee of Privy Council. He hoped, therefore, the
House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in
every step that he took, was bound to keep himself within
his legal powers, andithat the moment he stepped on doubt-
ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against
in a court of law. , The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
had stated that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had' proceeded
with unduehaste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec-
tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, led to an
opposite conclusion.—(Flear, hear.) He should be sorry
unnecessary to detain the House, but in such a case he
begged they would assume their judicial character, and
hear the answer he had to make to the statement of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What step should
the parishioners have taken in order • to interrapt these pro-
ceedings? Their first step was to have entered a caveat,
for by doing so they could have furnished the Bishop with
good and solid grounds for delaying proceedings. Why
then had they not taken that step in the first instance?—
(Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Emma must have known
that this was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre-
sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December,
but he was not instituted till the 24th of January; an in-
terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been
entered in a single day was evident from the fact of Dr.
Twiss having on the 2351 of January advised a caveat,
and from its being ready on the 24th of January,— (Hear.)
The Hon. and Learded Gentleman said that the parisioners
petitioned the Bishop, but petitions were of no legal value,
while, by entering a caveat the petitioners would have in-
curred a forensic responsibility. If the Bishop had pleaded
the petitions in any suit the Court would have laughed in
his face. He ventured to say that there was not an' at-
torney in Frome who would not have advised the peti-
tioners that if they were in earnest, the proper mode of
proceeding was by caveat. The Bishop would not have
been entitled to plead the address which he had received
from the petitioners in any proceedings which might have'
been taken against him. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man thought that the address did not supply matter for judi-'
cial consideration. The Bishop was not of that opinion,
and as the parishioners had not taken the proper method
of entering a caveat , he contended the Bishop would not
have been justified in refusing to institute.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Bishop could not refuse, neither could ho delay
iustitution. He apprehended that a judge could not delay
justice without reason, any more than he could refuse justice.
—(flear.) The obligation not to postpone justice was as
strong as the obligation not to deny it. The bishop would
certainly have been responsible to the patron,' as well as to
the presentee, if, knowing that the parishioners declined en-
tering a caveat, he had refused to institute' the presentee to
the benefice to which he had received the presentation. As
regarded the question of delay, therefore, he begged the
House to remember that twenty-six days had elapsed be-
tween the time when the people of From° had become aware
of the intention to present Mr. Bennett and the time when
he had been instituted. He put it to the House-that if
those parties were in earnest it was their duty to pursue
one or other of two courses; they ought either to have con-
sulted the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to have asked
.him whether he thought there were grounds for legal pro-
ceedings against Mr. Bennett, and then of course they
should be bound by the decision of the Bishop;' or they_
might have abstained from consulting the Bishop at all, and
have themselves entered a caveat and commenced legal pro-
ceedings in the matter. But they had riot chosen to adopt
either of these courses. The demand they bad made was
virtually to the effect that because they had found that
Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them,
the Bishop of Bath and Wells should undertake not only
the cost and risk of the legal proceedings, but that he
should undertake,. them in a cause which he believed to be
good for nothing. Let it not be forgotten that it had only
been on the 23d of January that those parties had sought
advice on the subject of their caveat—that was to say 25
days after they ought to have sought it, and when Mr.
Bennett was on the point of being instituted. Then, the
second charge of the Hon. Gentleman agairlet the Bishop of
Bath and Wells was, that Mr. Bennett had been instituted
without the proper certificate. But upon that point' it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the Hon. Gentleman
had fallen into an error in supposing that one of the canons
he had quoted—namely. the 48th canon, had anything to do
with that matter. He (Mr. Gladstime) believed he was be-
yond all risk of being questioned or contradicted-by any
`one conversant with, ecclesiasticaleelawea fwohenyehaera, thestate 89th
at the present time, and fora long series
Canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution
of ministers to benefices. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to
think that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had been guilty
of a legal offence in 'admitting Mr. Bennett without the
testimonial of the Bishop of London, But the 39th canon
did not require such a testimonial as that which the Hon.
Gentleman supposed to be indispensable. He met the state-
ment of the Hon. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of
Bath and Wells had received from Mr. Bennett fall evi-
dence with regard to his life and doctrines, and that if he
had refused to entertain that evidence Mr. Bennett, or the
patron of the living, would have been entitled to have pro-
secuted the bishop in the courts, and to have compelled
him to have granted institution. The Hon. Gentleman had
admitted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received
the usual testimonial signed by three incumbents, but he
had asked who these three incumbents were, and whether
he (Mr. Gladstone) had got that testimonial. Now, he had
to state in reply, that he had not got the testimonial, and
that he could not name the three incumbents. But he knew
that the testimonial, so far as the three incunbents were con-
cerned, was the usual testimonial. the Hon. Gentleman had
said that the testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett
had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci
pline of the Church of England. But the words of the testi-
monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had
never held, or taught; anything contrary to the doctrine or
discipline of the Church of England. It would be very diffi-
cult indeed to say of any man that he had not done any-
thing contrary to any particular doctrines ; but a man's
teaching was more public, and could more properly be made
the subject of a testimonial such as that to which he was
referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre-
cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were
concerned;; but it was not the usual . testimonial, so
far as the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London
—was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a
note in which he called the attention of,the Bishop of Bath
and Wells to the fact 'that Mr. Bennett had' been dismissed
from the diocese of London, or that the Bishop of that diocese
had made use of the voluntary offer of resignation of Mr.
Bennett, because, as he said, the continuance of that clergy-
man in the diocese would .seriously prejudice its free and
good order. He had called the attention of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells to the correspondence which had been pub-
lished iu the Times, between lifmselff and Mr. Bennett.
And thus they had got one step further in the matter.
The testimonial was the usual testimonial compelling the
Bishop to institute Mr. Bennett as far as the incumbents were
concerned ; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as
it had an extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop
of London. The question then arose, what • was the
exact legal nature and effect of that explanatory note of
the Bishop of London, and -what were the duties which it
imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad-. •
stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfre-
quently appended by bishops to testimonials ; but it was
quite plain that if a signature were affixed to any document
in conformity with law and usage, its legal effect could not
be altered by any gratuitous comment made by the party
signing it. The meaning 'of the signature of the Bishop of
London continued the same in point of law, whatever might
be the explanation affixed to it. What was the value of
that explanation? He (Mr. Gladstone) said that 'the value of
it was this—that it imposed on the Bishop of'Bieth and Wells
the duty of ascertaining for himself what was the doctrine
of Mr. Bennett, and of satisfying himself upon that point.
He contended that it could have no other value and effect
than that of imposing on the Bishop of Bath and Wells
the duty of examining Mr. Bennett. The Hon. Gentleman
himself admitted that the certificate of the Bishop of
London was not necessary— that the canons did not
require it, and that practice did not require it; and
he (Sir. Gladstone) believed that, under these cir-
cumstances, he had shown that there was an end to that
Part of the case attempted to be established against the BiShop
of Bath' and Wells. He next came to the third charge of the'
Hon. Gentleman, which was that the Bishoaof Bath and Wells
had admitted Mr. Bennett without due examination, and he
(Mr. Gladstone) was bound to say he thoughtat that
in the
sense of the Hon. Gentleman the Bishop of Bath and Wells
had so admitted Mr. Bennett. He should, however, add,
that although the constrn,c,dtittoenexecahrnicihnatthioen,H, ornni.gGht natultptmthane
had given to the phrase
House question
that felt
ever . c
inquiredo nfid ent
into,
there was
gentlemane Commons;there wh hh
ea
d
Tr Gentleman in the case,
lawyers there who felt with the eeon.
that would not at once repudiate that construction. lie saw
paneadleud to upon
tthheempowlih
intwthheicheamhee
ewonafisdtehneene discussingwith
whien hh ee apap-
pealed to Hon. Gentlemen who adopted his views in the
matter. The Hon. Gentleman had laid down the doctrine
litnahiadtht
deaojwsuidnrigetethet c —:fdoora bishop in' such a case as that was a judge
sensetrinet
oithaet that judge wa
term—theloon.n
not to institute
an examination of such a nature and to such an extent as to
loon. Gentleman had
satisfy his own conscience, he being the person on whose
conscience the law had laid the burden of the decision,
but such an examination as would satisfy other per-
sons on whom the law had not laid the burden of the
decision—such an examination as would satisfy what the
Hon. Gentleman called e. the public " and such an exami-
nation as would no doubt satisfy hi
for Cockermotith.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He wished
g
he could get the Hon. Gentleman to look in cold blood at
the consequences—he did not like to use stpngepithets—
but he should say the really frightful and
hideous
conse-
quences of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a con-
ception of the judge in a Kama
judicial character, as that a •

and iraleeftant matter was not to look foe such evidence as
; would satisfy his awnsenScience, but fore-eaeh-evideticetets-
Lwottld 'settee, the pudic.—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.") If
he had misunderstood the. Hon, Gentleman, audit the Hon.
Gentleman would-admit thet the duty of a judge was to in-
stitute, 'on his solemn responsibility, such an examination as
would satisfy his own judgment, and. acquit his own coo-
seletite before God, and men—then he and the lion. Gentle-
man were agreed.- The Bishop of Bath and Wells had dis-
charged that duty; he had _examined Mn., Bennett, not
in the Greek Testament; not on matters of form•
or of ecclesiastical history—he had examined ..Mr.
Bennett—not • the Mr. Bennett of former . times, .but
the Mr. Bennett of January last—the. Bishop who,
had himself been ee great _sufferer , from .. illness—from
crushing and torturing` illness=bot who haeLbeen in full'
possession of all hie intellectual powers sad faculties—for
the Right Hon. Gedtleman.the_Secretary of State was mis-
taken in supposing that he had arrivedat an extreme old.
age -he had carefelly examined Mr. Bennett .on all. those
points on which. he had thought that an examination had'
been called ftir—namely, those pints in dispute between
the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and it was.
hot until he bad made up his mind that on those points Mr.
Bennett had held by the Churcloof England that he had pro-
teeded to take any 'of the steps necessary for.granting the
propped institution. If he liad found that. Mr.,,Bennett had
held-the opinions' of the Church of Rome ineregard, for in.
stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-nine Articles, his
Course would have been clear, and it would -then, no doubt,
have been his duty to have refused institution.. But having
found that there had been no, gronnd for attributing to Mr.
Bennettean adherence to 'the doetrines of the Church of
Rome, he had granted "institutioli. Acting, not on the •
belief and convictions of the Hon. Gentlemenobta .on. the
belief and convictions of hirtiself,
.the Bishop, who was the
judicial officer appointed by the. law to decide. the case,•had
subjected Mr. Bennett to a due examination; anditwaa to his
honour that he had done that, not under the influence of any
Compulsion on the part of the parishioners of 'tome, for he
had done it before there had been any movement Whatever
among any discontented clergyinen or laymen,. :Elle Bishop
had himself instituted the inquireebeCause he had seen that
the circumstances of Mr. Benriett's former career had been
such as to call for it. He had:taken upon -himself that
responsibility, and by his own-Mouth had examined. IMr.
Bennett on those points on which he believedthot an ex-
amination was necessary.. Now ho.(Mr. Gladstone), should
confess that the Hon. Gentleniaii fairly beat him when he
led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed
theology . The Hon. Gentleman had quoted from &work of
Mr. Bennett some propositions in theology, and the Hon.
'Gentleman had told them that it would not be appropriate
in that House to discuss those propositions. No; but al-
though the Hon. Gentleman had not thought it appropriate
to discuss, he hid thought it 'appropriate to judge.and de-
cide.—( Hear, hear.) The. Hon... Gentleman had quoted a
saying of Mr. Bennett's; with regard to the Holy. Scriptures.
Bat Mr. Bennett himself had-on a 'former occasion com-
plained that higovords upon that subject had been mis-
quoted, not by an alteration of the words, but by taking
them out of their context, so as to make them, bear a
meaning totally different from that which he, had intended. .
The Hon. and Learoed Gentleman; speaking of the pa-
rishioners ofFrome in another part of hie 'speech, had asked
whether Mr. Bennett believed that the Bible was a fiction
and an absurdity, imputing to Mr. Bennett that belief, and
complaining that the Bishop of Bath and Wells bad not
made that a matter -for his judicial investigation. But when
he (Mr. Gladstone) looked at the possage, he saw that it
was, in his humble opinion, totally altered, as Mr. Bennett
bad contended, by being wrenched from What. Preceded and
followed. Could he remedy the evil by , reading the pas•
sage to the House? He felt that he could not. It was a
powerful and affecting statement of some of the most solemn.
doctrines of our religion, whicheuld hseay,cwoualsd.nontot'inprothfaenleeabsyt
reading the passage in the House of Commons;; The Ho .
heeh
common history of the Choral of nnurbe Ge
Eng-
land, except, perhaps, during the years. be belonged
degreea l
aware n t
01 Gentleman,' m
thean
to it.—(Hear, hear, and. • a laugh.) He (Mr. Glad-
stone) believed he could show' the Hon. Gent'enian that
he was totally unaware of. one of the great religious cOntro-
VersieS .Of• this century. The passage in the work of Mr.
Bennett had reference to this question-o.whether in the
work of propagating Christianity, •of spreading Christianity
among those who had not previously professed its doctrines
—the Bible alene 'should be used; and Mr. Bennett had said.
that it would be a fiction and delusion to suppOse that
Christianity would be propagated by merely distributing • the.
Bible among an un-Christian people. Bnt Mr. Bennett did
not protest against the use of the Bible by Christians for the
education of their soils. And the Honourable Gentleman
ought to know that for many.years after the foundation of
the institution known to every- Member of that House—
namely, the Bible Society—that institution had • been op-'
-posed by nearly the whole of the Bishops of the Church of
England. He (Mr. Gladstone) doubted if there were more
than a single Bishop who had not at the time opposed it;
and it had also been owPrPoonsgeldy.bywathsengreteatthmenas
thesofquestion—
that
men
of t Establishedhziegahmtiyeng
Christians,C h urch , a because
tiectahleayr
particularly
conceived—
whether
foreign
letion of the Bible alone was not the instru-
ment cn
whichu-
our Saviour had intended for propagating
U
The opinion which had' been held by Mr.
B
'one, therefore, which had been held at the
time Christianity.
ri tlands,event the
irc
twhiteYnestablishment of the Bible Society 'by the great
ofnieaesnringoetitfll
a"
the clergy and Bishops of the Church of England.
Mr. HOUSMAN said he had not quoted the opinion of
Mr. Bennett; he had merely said that the meniorialistalad
brought that passage under the notice of the Bishop. Ha had:
himself given no opinion upon the subject. -
Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The Hon. Gentlemin had
quoted the passage from the memorial; but he had also ad-
verted to it in another part of his speech. The opinion of
Mr. Bennett was • one which had been entertained by the
great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the Establiehed
Church ; it was no ecclesiaitical offence of whiCh the courts
could take cognizance, or whiCh they would admit as a valid
reason for staying the right of the patron
,or of the, presentee.
But the Hon. Gentleman had also adverted to another case
—that relating to the oath of supreinacy. Now he (Mr.
Gladstone) contended that upon that, as upon other points,
they ought to be guided by the law, and not by private
opinions. He was only afraid that as the law represented.
the spirit of one period, and the men of the -present genera-
tion represented'the spirit eefa different period—our Levee not
having been changed as public opinion had chatiged—thO.se
who were called upon to consider the conduct of great
public and judicial officers might forget that those officers
were only bound to conform to the law, and that they could
only be • blameable or punishable in consequence of a' de-
parture from it. It seemed that Mr. Bennett had put a
particular construction on the oath of supremacy which dif-
fered from that which was put upon it by-the Honourable
Gentleman: But the Honourable Gentleman ought to recol-,
lest that the meaning of the oath of supremacy was one.
Whichehad -Already been Mitch debated in that House.
The Noble Lord the Member. for London had given one.
construction of the oath,' and other Honourable Members
had given a different construction of it; and it was well
wk row
wn
etrhe apt
rae knot
ot hd
ee d pfir eso
me n tt
kmi
no
gm etnhttheree
irs
ea t
ow eiroe
the Peers
o Houser
of Lords, because they found it impossible to affix to the•
oath of supremacy any clear and distinct meaning to
which they could subscribe. But at all events he believed
that the meaning attached to the bath of supremacy by
the courts; and the Bishop of Bath an
Mr. Bennett did not amount to an dovvffeenlcieeoopoeindinshoatbmleakine,
it a ground for staying the insti
nett, although he might thereby avert o
pop aof cln-
tae-.
of ltllrr. Be
mour, and save himself ' from the hostility h
Honourable Member for Cockerrnouthe The Bishop
guardian, even though it might be necessary for ao
had merely to' carry out the law of which he was theh sworn
so in an unpopular manner, and under unpopular
want of evi-
dence, circum-
stances. As regarded the second charge,
iaeth 0
pt
.h :es
evidencede ce, he
aast r.
the Gladstone)
same
osi thoughtn
other h
casese d
of the Established Church: (Hear, hear.) But when h
came to the third charge, he had shown that the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, without waiting' for inquiry or suggestion
from the Bishop of London, made up his mimi that Mr.
Bennett could not be convicted of false doctrine, and that,
hadealtt hse
withoya nbnyt
therefore, it.WaS not his duty to deny or delay the justice
that rested with him to pronounce.—(Hear, hear-) The
Bishop of Bath and Well§ was fully borne out in the, course
which he adopted by the conduct of the Bishop
rof London.
He (Mr. Gladstone) believed it to be the case as regarded the
Bishop of Bath and Wells that he had made himself respon-
sible -to this extent, that, if Mr. Bennett were taken into an
ecclesiastical court, • and if his doctrines were there declared
to be contrary to those held by the Church of England,
there would then be a case against the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, who examined the works of Mr. Bennett, and de-
clared•them conformable to the doctrines of the Church of
Englande--(Hear, hear.) But now 'came the qiiestions—
What 'were they to do ? (Hear, hear.) It was not his (Mr.
Gladstone'e) business to' advise the House on this, point—he
was not going to make a motion or amendment on the sub-
ject; but he would offer a few observations on the motion
itself. He should confess there were 'objections to the mo-
tion as it 'now stood---namely, as regarded the institution
Of Mr. Bennett: Were he to vote for that motion as it now
stood, he would be assenting to the allegation that a
prima fatie case had been made against the Bishop of Bath
and Wells; but in his opinion no such case was made:—
(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman anticipated, as an objection
to his motiOno the present period of the session, and in
stanced the case of the inquiry moved for by the Hon. Member.,
for North Warwickshire.—(Hear, hear.) His -(Mr. Glad
stone's) first objection was to their professing to inquire into
the circumstances connected with the institution of the Bev.
Mr. Bennett to Frome. If they were to inquire at all, they
should have their inquiry into .the state and spirit of the
enactment of the laws which were studiously framed by suc-
cessive generations with a view to discourage bishops; and
make it impossible for them to do that which the Honour-
able Member for Cockerniouth now accused them with.—
(Hear, hear.) If they wished to go into the ques-
tion of ecclesiastical appointments—if an inquiry were
moved for to investigate the state of the law, and
to .do so in a fair and impartial spirit, the Honourable
Member moving such inquiry would confer one of the
greatest services poesible on the country, and greatly can-
tribute to the stability of the Established Church.—(Elear;
hear.) It was his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion that at pre-
sent parishioners did not possess sufficient means of making
their objections known in these cases of institation.—(Hear,
hear.) But Whether the subject should' be undertaken by a
Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was another ques-
tion. If they wanted an immediate inquiry, they could not
have it DOW by a Committee. Whether there should be a
Commissiou, or whether there should- be a general acknow-
ledgement of the expediency of instituting an, inquiry into
ecclesiastical and temporal law, with regard to the power of
making canonical objections to persons . instituting , to ap-
pointments, he would not say. At the same time, he should
.say that, if 'her Majesty's Government were disposed. to un •
dertake the responsibility of an inquiry into the state of the
law on this subject, they would give not only a most useful
turn to the discussion raised by the Hon. Member felt Cocker-
mouth, but also confer a vast amount of benefit.—(Hear,
near.) To either of these courses he (Mr. Gladstone) would
be prepared to give a. most favourable consideration. But
to censure a high judicial officer in the Church,. who had
done his duty, and only fiis dtity, and that with accuracy and
care, in the case now brought before them, he should confess
was, in his mind, a most objectionable course of proceeding
—(Hear, hear)--because it would be casting censure on a
pt.( late—not by implication, but openly—who had never
acted in a manner unbecoming his exalted position, and
who, instead of blame and censure, merited at their hands
the highest commendation.—(Cheers.)
Sir J.• PAKINGTON remarked that the Right Honour-
able Gentleman- the Member for the University of Oxford
had stated his sentiments with his usual ability, and had
gone very far to justify the course the Bishop had taken in
this case. The sleep attention which had been paid to the
Honourable Gentleman on both occasions when he brought
the subject' before the House proved how strongly the people
of this country and the Members of that House had been
excited by those dissensions which unhappily existed in the
Churcla,ot Ertgland.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oxford had observed' with painful truth,
that the Church was rent and torn by those unhappy dis-
sensions od (Sir Jelin •Pakington) believed that this
as manly
to that portion of the clergy of : the
Church
who bad, taken that line which Mr. Bennett pur-
sued—(Loud
cheers from all parts of the House)— a
line which in
hicase had led to his expulsion from one
ad led to the Moot • grave and scrimdipceSe, dipeen, and which h
: inly owing

; doubts whethere_al Cramene-taking that line' could he*
rreatiraiiieire ministers of the Church.—(Cheers.). He be-
I lieved that in many most essential respects, there never
was a more exemplary parochial Minister than Mr.
Bennett, but the same thing might unquestionably. be said-,
of a .large portion of the Roman Catholic clergy.—(Hear,
hear.) Bat there could not be a inure dangerous error than
to confuse personal piety and the exemplary discharge of
parochial duties-'with those vital doctrines which formed
the broad limit of demarcation between the two Churches.
—(Hear, hear.), No one 'could -deny the .unhappy dif-
ferences and dissensions -that had arisen in our Church,
and much of them was, undoubtedly attributable to those
gentlemen, who, like M. 'Bennett, exhibited that love of
forms and histrionic display which so much characterised
the Church of Ronte.—(Hear.-hear.) By means of those
gentlemen the lines of distinction between the two Churches
were every day Made fiber` --and finer,
and a number
of unwary Protest ents bad ' in' consequence been led
away to the Cbarch of R0n10..--ill
(Hear, hear.), He could
not (genie the Honourable'. Gentleman for bringing those re-
markable facts.beforia the -finale, but he seriously doubted
how far the House of Coon:fobs was a fit arena for such
discussion.—(Hear, hear.) 'lle Honourable Member ,had
quoted a statement of his- (Sir J. Pakington's)
opinion
the last time this subject was before the House. He had
then expressed that Opinion; and he had now no intention to
recede from it.—(Hr, hear.) The Government.on that oc-
, sion undertook to mike inquiry, and they exhausted every
means in their power to ascertain how far that inquiry could
be conducted.- The first step taken was to draw up questions
which in the judgment of- the - Government embraced the
whole matter in iss4. These haviag been submitted to the:
law officers of the Crown, they gave' it as their opinion ehat
there was no illegality in the institution of Mr. Bennett, and
that as to the transaions alleged, to have occurred at Kis-
singen—a foreign:country—no'-legal inquiry by the Bishop,
could be instituted. respecting • it„., .
The Government Mote
resting content with those answers, they submitted a se-
cond time more comprehensive-questions to the law officers,
and were again informed that there was no legal mode
by which the circumstances connected with Mr.
Bennett's induction could be made the subject. of
direct and immediate inquiry, but if there was any
legal mode then it 'would be open to the parishioners to
proceed under , the Church Discipline Act. With regard
to the transactions at Kissengene they were questions of fact,.
and it was undoubtedly a very extraordinary fact, and one
calculated to create great anxiety and suspicion, that Mr.
Bennett's name was to be found-in " Battersby's Directory."
This undoubtedly was a• question for the Bishop.to inquire
into. -He (Sir' J.; Pakington) had listened With astonish-
mentto What had fallen from the 'Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone),, when alluding to the transactions at Kis-
sengen. There an English clergyman passed many months
without going near the English- elergyeaan his church, or
congregation.—(Hear, hear.) -It was a subject calculated
to excite the gravest anxiety, sand to inspire the deepest re-
gret, to find that a clergyman so conducting himself should
be now at the bead of an important parish.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Sir J. Pakington) could not conceal his astonishment
when he heard the Right Honourable Gentleman vindicating
such conduct.-4" No," from. Mr. Gladstone.) Why,. he
said the clergyman was acting as a chaplain, and that his
family was his "congregation. But what was the family ? Why,
.Sir John Harringtoa's—the churchwarden of Mr. Bennett's
late church, St. Paul's, where Sir' John had conducted him-
self with more zeal than discretion.—(gear, heir.) He
(Sir John Pakingion) could. not-admit the propriety of any
chaplain so situated being exempt in faro conscienttce from
attending a place of public wership.—(Elear hear.). These
were matters of such publie notoriety that they must have
come to the knowledge of-the.. Bishop of the diocese, and
they were matters into which the Bishop was bound to in-
quire.—(Hear.) He did not 'believe, *mover, that any large
number of gentleman in that House would agree, that that
*as a proper place for making a judiCial inquiry into the con-
duct of a bishop. He thoUght _it would be a course un-
worthy of the House of CoMmons, and a dangerous precedent,
and therefore he must oppose the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Right Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken, if he thought, he (Mr, Gladstone) Vindicated Mr.
Bennett's conduct at ;Kissengen._ He wished to state also,
that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not become ac-
quainted with that conduct until after Mr. Bennett's in-
duction.—(Oh, Ob:) '
..
Sir PAGE WOOD believed this was a grave. constitu-
tional question. He felt most deeply the vast importance of
the general subject, and the' 'mode in which the people of
England had been, excited bo the subject. Owing to this
excitement there was the more dread of their being led away
by their feelings to Some unconstitutional course.—(Hear,
hear. )_ Could any one doubt that the conduct of numbers
of those, who,' being sworn members of our Church, had
'availed themselves of that position to disseminate what
we considered—and he meant no offence to any Honourable
Member - to be the errors and corruptions of the Church of
' Rome. In one case a party acted with such- baseness as to
go over to the Church of Rome the very day after he had
preached in the Established Church, and he took with -him
the two children of his organist.-a(llear, hear.) The un-
fortunate man who first took the lead in this movement
had written a book npholding the doctrines of the Church
of Rome. That tract,' which he - had read, favoured the
most miserable hypocrisy, which the (Sir W. P. Wood)
should at all times be ready to denounce. He had dealt
with the doctrine ef the Church in what was called their
a unnatural"- sense: The matter; however, was not confined
to one side, and he was afraid that as , the unnataral sense
led to the Church of Rome, so, on the other side, it might
lead to religious error. Ho • respected the opinions of all
men who had changed their religion from conscientious
motives, and in that feeling lee- ridnlifed Mr. Baptist Noel
for having left, the Church e but he could not admire those
who, approving of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, did
not go over to that Church. Every ,member of the Church
of England was,bound to take the-Book of CoMmon Prayer
in its naturailonn, and accordin to. its strictaneaning as
laid down by the Chinch. But while he felt that, he was of
opinion that they would not advance the cause which he had
at heart, namely, a legislative reform of the ecclesiastical law,
by taking up indiyiduals and holding them up to detesta-
tion, and, still more, by makinglhe matter a partyqnestion,
with a view to a remedy.' With regard to Parliament, how
did the motion hefore the House Stand? On a former occasion
they were asked tohave an inquiry under authority of the
Crown, and now they were asked to have an inquiry before
a Select Committee. But is both cases the Inquiry asked
would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, and the principle
was this—that they 'ought not to inquire into the conduct
of an individual behind his back, or bring charges against
him, unless it was to put hiiefon his trial. • They might
bring a man before a grand jury, but it would be for the
purpose of bringing a, bill of indictment against 'him; and
they might have an inquiry by the House of
Commons, also
subject to certain conditions; and he did not dispute the
right of the House of Commons,-'which was called the Na-
tional Inquest, to inquire into abuses • but if they instituted
inquiry into this matter, they should proceed 'fairly. He
was glad to find that her Majesty's Government felt that
they could not issent
,to the course proposed, and also that
they had undertaken to , recoharnend inq " y into it; for
otherwise he felt:: that there was no posluir-
m d even ac-
cording to the statement of •therliorre Membero for Cocker-
mouth, of dealing with the question, his
Friend
Honourable
_not having made out any breach- oe did not
"the law. He think it just that a parish should be pia ins osition to
have such a man as the Rev. wir, Bennett ced p
without the power to demand the in •
forced upo,
n them
as
Cl ry whether he w a member of the Chuech of Euglandui e But
whatever inquiry might be adanted • .--(Rear, hear., . _
into his case, as matters
stood it could not to arch's Minißight
Hon. Gentleinan, the Member for thet The as that. ,
niversity of Osten"
(Mr. Gladstone) had rather understated- • f our
ofthe Bisbop.Bishop, it apea
the case in av
point to the living, and did not red, had 28 days to ?-
seventh day; therefore there- wa:ptliinoint until the tw'nentn
appointment. And with respect to de baste i. ..
timonials of the clerk a court of. corn his demanding the tea
l that
he had no such right. A case had ina on law 'would
bishop
had demanded the testuriOnials of
a iterri.den wherein a
ed
by the court in vei costs. • -In- non '', and he site lei"
'natives
which the Hon. Member for- -Cocker e of those alternatives
could proceedings be taken .either mouth had laid down,_
London or the Bishop of Bath - _against the .Bishop
_l_'.l
Member for Cockermouth said .''!" Wells. The lien
that the Bishop should
have gone farther than he had; and Rev.
Mt. Bennett; and the Right Hon - examined the.
ourala I ber for the
University of Oxford said that- he h ea em
SO
that they had assertion against assertion, examined him,..
BiShop could have done was to -put 'llan. All that the
nett's own book into i hand, • the Rev. Mr. Ben-
writeWs and se • you
this book? I nd such and id to him, a Did .
it." Such was the course taken in Such a statement in
the
Bishop of Exeter, and . the' Privy 04 Gorham case by a
contrary vie* of the matter, the liishopril having taken
e.a.
being so, what remedytwould the Bisbo ad no remedy. That
the Rev. Mr. Bennett? The great ',net have in the
the Hon.
Member for Cockermnuth male Was make which
law. According to the authority of e his reading of the
eaord Eli h the
bishop, in such a case as this, had. no. enboroug
'whatever,
having the matter of approval resting with his discretion
having examined the preacher, which hew!' conscience, after
d The people of Frome might hm, was bound by I ,
to 0.
hie would hay dire e consulted any at
torney in the place, w
told them to- 0 e cted them in the
right course, and consult a.
botuever, tchear ~. Proctor. Up to the
present moment, ,
ation to iusti ' -,,as not . one word
of judicial inform l Y they d
Bennett's b ' course propese •
0n reading /Mr. book, _
Wood) had formed his Own conclusion he
It was un on h" , (Sir W. P.
edlv a grave teeing Alia .t a man should be d bt-
' such circumstances, bat atl 1. that wasinetituded under
tk
ready to join heartily in any motioa . O law. He was
which would nerve .to protnoti an amend for an inquiry
and doubtless as so great eageraess had hTent of the law,
Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical courts e:4 displayed for
next session. In his opinion, however, there°4l4 not escape
for ian inquiry such ' had now been eneve.was no ground'
granted, as a general r le In similar .circumatd for and if
ttia,Member's pledging himself to go on with res,' without
was a proceeding opposed: to the spirit of the e inquiry, it
a
Most obvious
principles of the constitution,
. Colonel BOYLE said, that nit had .been imp,
Reverend Gentlemon who had signed the protest-, ted to the
had been actuated bv t unWotthr motives as h that they
quainted with them all, ,he could declare ;ale belieQf ras "-
such motives had prompted them.--It was indeed truhat no
there was a party at Frome who interested thernselv: 'that
appoint "a particular a e
the lady patroness to app 1 rgyma v,
s with
were they thought deserving, and that they e
refused'...„ But
although that was SO,- it did'nOt induce any of theni. te
the protest As for the popularity of the "Vicar ef Put. s'gU_
.he.was able to give the House a,.little information onottnho,
subject, as it waS *probably not so well aware of the eocaL.
of the place-as he was: •Haeletarreceivd a letter fro an
: attorney of Frome, who had' been applied to on them ve
question, and he there said 'he did not believe any ry
feeling had come; over the
parishoners; but that' then -
, ere ex
isted a decided determination among the most i •
ntelligeut of
them to discountenance Mr.-Bennett 'and his doctrines. It
stated also that the vicar's churchwarden
had resigned, and
left the churchte and that it was only with the greatest dime
culty a successor had been found. Now, when it was said
that the parishioners should have applied
th to the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, he might ne. well say
hadat they had little
confidence in an appeal to a prelate who given-
refuge to
bride who had previously been refused preferment- in the
a c
remembered that the costs
diocese of Ripon ; and when they
1.,000/.; there
of the Gorham case amounted to was certainly
ac,
_ao '
:mot much encouragement to-try the question e-try
,gmen e at law. Re
could not but express his Knl d t
. s
to -the Member
d temperate
which
w i
for Cockermouth foe the able and manner i
and if his he had brought the subject forward; 'efforts failed,
he would certainly
recommend
to procure peace, at Frome,
pack •u his - partite t • --
the Rev. Mr. Bennett to •Pn 11 and be
off:—(Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. YORKE denied that the address
had been signed 1?3,
0 tt 'll
by Mr. ru we . The lion
boys and girls, as was
said
left the impression On.
Member for Cockermouth bad 1 upon the
at the House that he had taken the matter i p
had requestofthe
If Mr. Bennettgone 'to
parishioners of Frome.
I s assure the House
mass at Rome, he could, neverthe es ,
that
the Hon. .Member hi
he was as good a churchman as raself,
he delivered h"
or the Bishop of London, wheel ... IS charge in
1842.
Gentleman
Sir B. HALL said he believed, the Hon.
himself a party to those
Romanisiag proceedings, and that
he took part in =the maniorahle procession which had pro-
duced , such unfortunate results: 11
e maintained that most
of the signatures to' the addresrhadheen•eatained in Public.
housea by persons smoking and drinking, who
_ then and there
11 bore testimony. to the soundness of the doctrines of Ur.
l 'Bennett—(Laugh ter. ) .
-- -

• Mr. YORKE—That is denied by Mr. Crattwell.. -
Sir B. HALL—It was denied by Mr. Miller, but stated by
Mr. Cruttwell. But this was not the real question at issue.
The real question was, what were they to do in these lament-
, able circumstances? In his district there was a Protestant
clergyman who, althongh performing Divine eervice in the
Church of England, attended a Roman Catholic place of
worship Sunday after Sunday. A gentleman who saw him
declared his readiness to come forward and verify the fact
that he crossed himself, made the various genuflexions, and
remained during the whole time of service; that he went
there again the following Sunday, and yet that man per-
formed Divine service in the church of St. Andrew's, Wells-
street.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said, Why did
they not go into the ecclesiastical court of Wells ?
But, would anybody, under such circumstances, go there,
when the Bishop had just appointed his own son to preside
over it. •He believed Mr. Bennett had been the means of
converting many persons to the Church of Rome. Did the
lion. Gentleman not know that, connected with the 'church
of St. Barnabus was a conventual establishment, and that
the'claughter of a Right Hon; and Learned Gentleman, once
a Member of that House, was at the head of that establish-
ment—that the father of the lady had begged of Mr. Bennett
to use his influence and endeavour to induce her to retrace
her steps ? •And did he not know that that Rev. Gentle-
man, who was now the pastor of Frome, had refased to listen
to the prayers of the parent; and that the daughter, and all
the ladies associated with her, had gone over to the Church
of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Did not Lord Colchester cite the
case of another lady where a similar result had taken place?
This man had been proved to have been trifling" for some
time with Sir John Harrington, of whom they had bean
told by the Rht Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the
University of (ford, that:he had been justiflei ha leaving
the Church of England, because he had a congregation of
his own—

Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had distinctly contra-
dicted that statement before.

Sir B. HALL was not aware that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had done so or he would not have made the observa-
tion. He would nsk the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) to say candidly what ought to be done under such
circumstances? Let the Bishops, who were the persons that
ought to be most desirous of reforming the ecclesiastical law
of the country, exert themselves in their places in the other
House of Parliament to effect this object. The Government
had intimated that even if they appointed a Commission to
inquire into this subject, the Bishops would not answer the
questions that would be put to them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, no.
Sir B. HALL—WeII, then, let them have a Committee,
and request the Bishops to appear before it, and if they then
refused to do so the responsibility would be on themselves.
Mr. E. YORKE wished to make an observation in refer-
ence to the young lady who had been alluded to by the Hon.
Baronet. His impression was this, that the young lady her-
self was always restrained by Mr. Bennett from going her own
way to the Church of Rome.—(Laughter.), He thought
that his word was as good as that of the Hon. Baronet's.
The report then was, that the young lady had a strong in-
clination to go to Rome, but was restrained, up to a certain
point, by Mr. Bennett. •But as soon as Mr. Bennett left St.
Barnabas she went to Rome.—(Hear and laughter.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE next rose, amid loud cries for a divi-
sion. He thanked the Hon. Member for Cockermouth for
the very able manner in which he had brought this subject
under the notice of the House. Whatever might be the re•
suit of the division, he trusted that one good effect of bring
ing forward the subject would be to lead to an alteration in
the state of the existing law, and he was anxious to bear
from her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared
to consider the state of the law in the next session, and to in-
`troduce some measure which *add prevent men from hold-
ing benefices in the Church of England who had.been con-
victed of unsound doctrines and the encouragement of Romish
practices.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—This
discussion, Sir, has tended very much to clear the case since
it was brought under the notice of the House. We have com-
pletely investigated the position of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells with respect to these circumstances, and I think I
do not misinterpret the general feelings of the House if I
describe it as one which would be extremely reluctant, by
any vote which it could arrive at, to throw any censure upon
the conduct of that prelate.—(Hear, and cries of " Oh, oh.")
It may be certainly very easy for Honourable Gentlemen to
sneer at that statement; but I think after a calm and ample
discussion. so ably conducted as this has been, we must ar-
rive at the conclusion that however many of us may regret
the institution of the individual who has become the vicar
of Frome, it is impossible for us to assert, by a vote of this
House, that it was the duty of the Bishop of that diocese to
prevent that institution ; nay more, I think that we have,
most of us, arrived at this conclusion, that had the Bishop
of the diocese thrown any difficulties in the way of the in-
stitution of Mr. Bennett, he would have incurred very
perilous consequences. In the present state of the law, I
think it quite impossible that the House should come to
any vote which would in fact cast upon a Bishop of the
Church of England a condemnation, simply because he has
done that which all must admit to have been strictly his
legal duty, and which if ho had not fulfilled would have
involved hint in the most serious injury. I consider
the question of the conduct of the Bishop of Bath
and Wells to be perfectly distinct from those which have
occurred with respect to the present vicar of Frome.—
(Hear, hear.) Bat at the same time I cannot but remember
that it is only the conduct of the Bishop with which we have
to deal.—(Hear, hear.) When this question was first brought
under the notice of the House, I took the liberty of stating
with respect to the point of the ability which the parishtoners
of Frome should have of challenging the institution of one
who was to become their vicar, that if the state of the law did
not afford a remedy, then, I thought, it was our duty to
siipply one. Generally speaking, that is a principle which I
think ought to guide u under these most painful circum-
stances. I cannot think, with the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the city of Oxford, that there is no remedy for
the parishioners. I must still repeat; acting on the opinions
that have been given me, and confirmed by my own in-
quiries—the opinion I have expressed before in this House,
that there is a remedy for the parishioners of any living
placed under the circumstances in which the parishioners .of
Frome are placed, and that that is a remedy for which' they
need not go to any ecclesiastical court, or have recourse to any
ecclesiastical law. But I will not enter into that question again,
which we have before urged, because I am willing to admit
that there is not sufficient facility or opportunity for parish-
ioners placed in the situation of those of Frame to obtain
that relief and redress which they have a right to expect. -
But so far as the present motion is concerned, it is really
the institution of Mr. Bennett into the vicarage—and that
is the act of the diocesan—which we are called on to inquire
into. I must repeat my opinion that the coneuct of the
Bishop of Bath and Wells cannot fairly be called in ques-
tion. But if we were to appoint a Committee, let the :House
consider what will be the duties of that Comnaittee. Their
duties would not be, I apprehend, to rake up evidence with
, a view • to institute proceedings against the Bishop. Well,
then, what is the duty of that Committee ? Is it to be a
Committee to consider the state of the law? In my opinion
hefi
of ei
thee 3
this is hardly the moment in whichich we should appoint a
Committee to consider the state of the law with respect to
ttaihenliynsltidtuatinonnt otfhpinekrsoans
Committeei ne anlidnnwsehoicfhcnciner..
mons the best instrument te carry on with effect. I have
-
been asked by my Hon. Friend the Member for Warwick.
shire to give a pledge on the part of the Government that
they will take into consideration that important subject, the
state of the law with respect to the institution to benefices. I
am sure my Hon. Friendwill not press me to gives pledge on
a subject of so grave and difficult a character. But that it is
a subject which must engage, sooner or later, the considers.
tion of any Gevemment—that the state of 'our ecclesiastical
laws is one that cannot be much longer tolerated—(Loud
cheers)—and that with respect to the ecclesiastical courts, we
should follow the same course of temperate and efficient
reform which we have applied to all the other means ofjudi-
cature in the country—these, I think, are opinions which
few of us do not share, and certainly they are sentiments on
which the Government are prepared to act. I trust the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth will not ask
the House to come to a decision on this motion. If indeed
he persists in so doing, although I myself most sincerely re-
gret much that has occurred at the vicarage of Frome, and
although 1 will not at this moment go out of my way to
offer any criticism on the conduct of other individuals con-
cerned] in these transactions, Because I feel it is unneces-
sary to-night, especially when the conduct of one individual
alone is called in question—still, if the Hon. Gentleman
asks me to support this resolution to appoint a Committee to
investigate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells,
with respect to hiscompletion of an act which I do not think
he could have refused to fulfil, I shall feel it my duty to offer
a negative.—(Cheers.)
Ur. ELLICE said he saw all the difficulties of the case—
he saw all the objections to the appointment of a Select Com.-
mittee—(flear, hear)—but he could see no other remedy for
the grievance complained of—(Hear, hear)—except an in-
ciairy—eot 'directed personally against the conduct of the
13ishdp of Bath and Wells, but into all the facts of the case,
in order
to ground thereon further proceedings with respect
to the state of the law—(l-fear) —which give no relief to
Parties complaining oe this grievance.—(Hear, hear.) Upon
this ground he should vote for the motion, seeing no other
meani of rediess.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOODY• thought that' if an inquiry, was instituted
into the occurrences in London it would be trying Mr.- Ben-
nett twice over. The question they had 'to deal with was
pot an individual question, but was one as regarded the
Church at large. It appeared to him that there was a
very easy remedy in such cases as
.the one complained of.
m
He thought a Commission t b enssued with reference to
what had taken place abroad, as well as to what had oc-
curred at home.— (Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOg•GENERAL said there was nothing in
the Motion which impugned the conduct of Mr. Bennett.
-e(Hear, hear.) It was for an inquiry, into the circum-
stances attending his institution, and was directed entirely
against the
what by
the Bishop of Bath andinstit Walution(Hehad ar, h
onear.)
done
The
ly
Bishop, however, in
law he was-bound to do; and as far as he
was concerned, therefore, there was no ground for the in-
quiry. Then as to the state of the law some misconception
existedit we
re proved that Mr. Bennett, by preach-
ing' for
or for
if• ,
by act or word, showed unsoundness of
doctrine, it was competent for the parishioners to put the
law in motion against him under the Church Discipline
r hear.)—and even as to his past conduct
Act-( ea
commission could issue in respect of anything said or
ilOne i h this country within two years past.— (Hear, bear.)f
er, to the state of the ecclesiestacal courts o
Looking,, howev
(Hear, hear) ,—to the practice of those courts,
the cOuntry:—.
ometimes excessive—incurred in the
d
an the expeuses—s edings—(leare hear)—a remedy was loudly
called justest Wan
ar
It would be impossible to enter
f".—{
nirY now,hehoped into that inf but
i
which had takenlace in our courts of law and equity
would at the proper time belextended
_to_th e
ecclesiastical
courts.--(11e-lra)
answer of the
the •
111 r.
D 'EDES was disappointed at
Chancellor of the
Exchequer as to future legislation—(Hear.
h of the Solicitor-General as to the
hear)—and the speech of had not encouraged - any hope of
of the law, which
state. done to place it in a more satisfactory con-
something being
shown that the law was in-
t' r hear.) It was s
clition.—(-0a ' and that therefore, something was
accessible to individuals, ,
accessi be done.—(llear.) Ile regretted • the state of
necessary to
things sehich had been disclosed as to the position of the
Church—Olean'
He was anxious to put an end to it,
• us not to im ute bl
the same time was anxio p arne to
and at
....(flear.) But, as there was no hope
'ustly.
any party uhl.
of the law, lie must, in order to promote
of any alteration
the motion.— (Hear. )
this, object to vote for
SIDNEY HERBERT could not express how strongly
he as pained by the statements that had been made. He
Was satisfied that
the question before them should be strictly
looked into, and that members of the Church should have
means of. redress without the necessity of coming to that
which was not well suited for questions of the kind. I
House,
--(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of Bath and Wells, it was clear,
could not have refused the induction, without risking an
action at law for his refusal.
Mr. avALPOLE begged to be permitted to address one
word to the House in consequence of what had fallen from
the Hon, Member for West Kent (Mr. Deedes). That Hon:
Gaiiieman, he thought, had entirely mistaken the reply of
his Eight Ma, Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to
the epees" of the Hon. Member for Cocker Mouth. The in-
quiry would have been acceded to if it had been
suggested by the Right Honourable 'Member for Coventry
(Mr. E. Bilice). But when he (fir. Witipie) reflected

upon the speech of the Honourable Member for Cocker-
, mouth, and considered that the issue of the inquiry was
, the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, that inquiry
I was to lead to a censure upon the conduct of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, or to an impeachment on the part of some
Members of the House of Commons against that prelate,
I and when it was notorious that the Bishop refusing institu-
tion would have incurred the double proceeding of a writ of
quare impedit and duplex qucerel, the proposition could not be
entertained. In the present state of the law the Bishop
could not have acted differently, and under these circam-
stances, he (Mr. Walpole) hoped the Hon. Member would
not :press his motion to a division. If it was pressed, he
trusted 'the House would reject it, as he considered it to be
both unreasonable and unjust.
I Mr. DEEDES explained that what he desired was a dis-
tinct declaration on the part of the Government that they
desired no alteration in the existing law.
Mr. GOULBURN thought it had been established that
the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells ought not
to be impugned. Feeling, therefore, that the inquiry
should not be in this particular case, but to the state of the
law, he should propose as an amendment that the in-
quiry should be directed, not as to the institution of Mr.
Bennett, but into the state of the law attending the in-
stitution of clerks to benefices.—(Hear
Mr. HORS MAN,
hear.)
he could an-
in 1'e131.5-, said he thought
ewer the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman in thre. e
words. Certain parties Were
friends of theirs proposed that ate used of murder, and certain
the state of the law with respect re should be inquiry into
sto capital punishment.
—(Hear, hear, and laughter.
device by' which the experienced Meuch was the ingenious
miter for the University
of Cambridge attempted to lead the
inquiry in which they were most interesTeecl away from the
n d to which
they at this moment seemed to be most inclined
and
roidid
ul.
be making their proceedings perfectlyludicrous
motion con-
templated
Air
culous to adopt such a suggestion. (Hear.)
inquiry into the institution of the Rev. Bennett the conduct of all the parties implicated in the-
etubtaa7
stances in question. A maxim in our law
Provided
there should be no grievance without a remedy. A grievance
t had been shown in this case, bat where was the remedy?
While every one admitted the grievance, not one had sug-
gested a remedy. Was the grievance to remain unredressed,
or.was the House of Commons still to say they would do no-
thing? He had brought this subject forward without having
any knowledge of the parties at Frome ; indeed, he had made
it a rule to take up no ,subject on merely local grounds. He
had selected it as a type of an abuse.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... 156
Against it ... 111

Majority ... . -.
".
-45
MAYNOOTH.

Mr. BROTHERTON then moved the adjournment of the
House.

Mr. OSWALD inquired when it was the intention of the
Member for North Warwickshire to bring on the adjourned
debate on the Maynooth grant?
Mr. SPOONER said he must refer the Hon. Gentleman to
the resolution of the House. That would be decided when
the other orders were disposed of.
Mr. NENYDEGATE said it was his intention to take
the sense of the House on the question of the adjourn-
ment of the debate. It was now determined to defeat a
decision on that question by a factious opposition, but the
attempt of the Member for Salford to get rid of the
question would be frustrated, for he would take the
sense of the House on the question when the dropped order
for the resumption of the debate on the Maynooth grant
came on.

Mr. ANSTEY would be no party to a postponment of
the decision on the Alaynooth question, and he hoped the
Member for Salford would press his motion.
Mr. BROTHERTON had no intention to get rid of the
question, but to get rid of the House.--(Laughter.) They
had been already sitting fourteen hours, and he was deter-
mined to press his motion to a division.
Mr. HINDLEY thought the proposal of the Member for
Salford most reasonable, and he hoped the Government
would support the motion for the adjournment of the
House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
thought the House had sat long enough.
The House then adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD
REFORM ASSOCIATION.

t
(CONTINUED ON MONDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS.)
Sir,—On Monday the, 7th of June, the: Militia Bill
was read a third time, and a Clause added, extending
i .
certam exemptions to the Universities of London and
Durham. Amendments directed to limit the powers of
the Bill, were negatived by majorities of 187 to 142,
and 178 to 82. A position had bean ably taken up by
the Government, in making the 'application of a con-
scription permissive and not obligatory; the' effect of
which was to diminish opposition by making the danger
' more obscure. At the same time, the resistance to the
Bill has
_been wanting in conecwatioa and vigottr; ex-
hibiting an inclination to be prepared with an answer to
Constituents, rather than the steady adhesion of men
conscientionsij desiraiie Of falling 4a:the Iv;st ditch.
Oa Tueiday_the Ht)1130 met at neon eto peoeeed with
the question of. Maynooth. After a few preliminary
speeches of no great length, an orator from Catholic
Ireland, as the Americans say " occupied the floor,"
till the hand of the clock reached four, and the
debate died a natural death. Without following
him through his details, one thing he proved, which
is sufficient to dispense with all the rest; and that is
that the House is now called upon to institute an in-
quiry, while there is all the time a legal method of
inquiry directed by Act of Parliament. Why is not
-the House of COmmons to institute an inquiry-into-the
cases which may be now in band at the Old Bailey,—or
into the more complicated mysteries pending in the Court
of Chancery? Simply because there is a legal appa-
ratus already for those very purposes, and it would be
simple foolishness for the House of Commons to erect
itself into a new tribunal.
At six came on Mr. Horsman's motion for a Select
Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected
with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to theViCarage
of Frome. Some strange points appear to be established.
It seems to be avowed; that a bishop is powerless for good,
andA by consequence if he has any strength it is for evil.
''''''°ng other things, it is declared that nothing a
clergyman
by a bishop, A • •• is virtually can do abroad, can be be taken cognizance of
a an instance, Is
main-
tained by thee. Government, ,
___ may
backed by all the
lawyers in
tir entry every go to .a catitinolic House, that a clergyman
get there, may
displays winter if he can
ostentatious
of commulenmake the most
ending in getting hens l
Church in the Almanac
c fannounced as a eaember of that
sibility of interference
back to take his tithes o-r Directory, and may oche
with the Church of Rome,
rior. To leave no it England without the pos-
is maintained that auchu
himself to heavy pains and upon the subject, it
doubt any ecclesiastical sup
?mai° fsortrellve
Dpensaresioirf
he
attemptedwould
tto
sinotmereferpee.rsoFnosr
mthayis'bebise their revenues.
ter things to come, from the fact glut" hope of bet-
motion was carried by 156 to 111. Efer r.
Horaman's
gins the first chapter of the Re-reformatione' perhaes___kbe.
of England. of the iimareaL
I am, Sir, yours very sincerely,
AN OLD REkORMER.
Blackheath, June 9,1852.

THE COUN TRY MARKET&
IPSWICH, JUNE 8.
We continue to have the smallest show of wheat possible;
prices remain firm, and no disposition is shown by the sellers
to accept less Oran late figures. The showery and now very
forcing weather is questionable as regards benefit to the grow_
ing crops.

PER QUARTER. PER QUARTZ/G.
Wheat, red
Ditto, white 4ss to 48s Oats ......... 005 to oos
Barley, malting ... 00s to 00s Rye ooa to 00s
Ditto, grinding 00s to 005iMa1t........... 00s to 00s
Beans
AVERAGES FOR THE MIES ENDING JUNE 5, 1852.
Wheat
Barley
Beans 37 „ 32s Od
Peas
Oats ... „ 00s Od
HULL, JUNE 8.

Messrs. Taylor and Bright 's Circular states ;—A good
deal of rain has fallen at intervals during the past week—it WU
much needed for spring corn and grass, and has come too
late to prevent a light hay crop. The transactions of the past
week have been on a very limited scale, but each description of
spring corn has somewhat increased in value, with limited ar-
rivals and small stock in warehouse. We had a fair supply of
wheat from our own farmers, with very little foreign on show,
either from ship or granary. Fresh farmers' wheat was good
to sell at last week's rates, and more inquiry for foreign, with-
out however leading to much business. A retail sale for bar-
ley, as also a good consumptive demand for beans and peas. In
oaf not much business passing. No alteration to be quoted,
but cakes are decidedly cheaper. Nothing doing in rapesee,
but cakes go off readily at our quotations. Bones maintain
their value.

The following are the present prices of grain
s.
Wheat, English, red 37 to 40
Do. white 4O 44
Dantzic and Ko-
nigsberg 4O 45
Pomeranian and
liamburgh . 3B 40
Danish, Holstein, Sr

8. 8
Peas, white and yel. 30 32
Do. grey 26 28
Linseed, Black Sea 44 46
Do. Petersbnrgh 42 4.5
Do. Riga & Archng 38 42
Do. Konigsberg 36 —4O
Per ton.

Friesland 36 38(
Russian and Odessa 34 38
Oats, English
Do. Danish
Do.Friesland lB 2u
Do. Russ. & Odessa 15 17
Barley,malting 2B 30
Do. grinding 26 —27 i
Beans 29 31
Do., foreign 26 28

Ling. c., Hull 71 103 Od to 010.
Do. fine for. —7l 5s Od to 0/ Oa
Do. inf. foreign... 0/ to 61 03
Rapeseed 23/ 108 to 001
Rape cakes...92s 6d to 953 01
Tares, English ......37, 008
I Do. foreign 328 —34 s
Guano 5l 71 to9llo
Bones, do 97s 6d to 1001
Rye Meal 71 01

CORK, Juira 7.

. .
Barrels. Currency.
O White wheat 00s Od to ON Od 00s Od-20 stone
O Red wheat oos Od to 00s Od
0 Ditto oos Od to 00s Od} ON 00-10 do
O Ditto ON Od to 00: Od
O Barley 00. Od to ON 00
0 Ditto oos 00 to 00$ Od} 00s 0d—.09 do
0 Ditto OO3 Od to 003. Od
0 Bere 00s Od to 00s Od Os Od
16 Oats 10, 6d to 12. Od
,0 Ditto .... OO3 Od to 00s Od ON 00—.9 de
0 Ditto ... ON. 'Odto 00. Od
O Pigs ... .. ; oos Od to 00s Od ON Od per met
Quantity sold at the Highest Prices:—
0 barrels white wheat; 0 red ;00 barley; 0 bete; 11 oats;
0 pigs.
Quantity of Grain and Number of Pigs sold last week:-.
Wheat, 48. Barley, 35. Oats, 629. Pigs, 0.
PRICES OF BUTTER.
CTIRILINCY.
CAST.
First quality .... 69. First quality .... ........ .. 60.
Second quality
Third quality 63s Third quality bhis
Fourth quality
Fifth quality
Sixth quality 361 Sixth quality
Return of Cattle sold for week ending May 29.
Pigs, 319. Sheep, 444. Cows, 88.
Coar.—Flour.First 12s 6d to 13s 6d ; extra 141 6d;
per
too. Hay—Farmers 2880 d to 30s3averame
seconds, 10s Gd to 12s ; households Nto 10s 6d ; thirds, 7s to 9s
per cwt. Oatmeal 1 is to Ils 6d; Indian meal sa 3d to 889 d;
wheat.
meal, 9a 6d to 10s 6d per evrt. Indian corn 815. to 81103 per ton.
Od :
98040. Od; average 00s per ton. St: ew--F ;es
00.;Bran 8d
dealers
s t c
2s 9
s to
Od to 23s 00; average 20,; dealers 273 Od to 003
average 00. Od per ton. Bread—Wheaten loaf 60 to
houtehold loaf bil to Od per 41b. Fresh butter, 8 orb;
10d; per lb. Eggs-31 4d to 33 60 per hundred. --
Nevrport 141 Od ; Lydney 154 ; Landore 00. • Coalsi-.
12. 6d per ton. Tallow 35s Od to 3,,-- , N....fus
rthFs7l:oe;ceswol 14s to 152 Per atone.
Whisky', 25 o. p., 55 9d par im • l 's pfrr cwt.
imperial gallon. Meat
—Beef 4d to 7d ; mutton 50 to
81B7dar8;sk,toperedr91170$4: t
perto 48 0010 cwt. bacon
peßangor
aut o
ng6 do. sid ; vet 4d to
slates 2alustg" 50
per lb. Hops
f tch herrings 183 to 19s; red
17s 6d to 3/ Os per ton.
Hemp 29/ to 34/ per ton. Fish—
ditto, 243 to 00s per barrel ; Ne
ton. ' Timber—Memel, 70 w °luldlandi 10/ Os to ii/ ye!
ditto, 21 153 per ton; dot per ton; red pine, 315.; yellow
Market 16s to 243; salted 1 51
to 181 per 100. Hides--
10d to 12d. Guano--P
3d to Od per lb. p0..,._83 to 24e per ewt ; calf skin.
to 910 i per ton. Tar—eruvian, 10/ 105 to 11Z; Ichabcof --
Ar:neafgely,hiLigataveBrdbarreLto 9d; pia k 42
t-_-......--_