The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-05 00:00:00

IRELAND

DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY.— CLOSE CF THE SPECIAL
COMMISSION AT MONAGHAN.--At the sitting of the
court yesterday morning, the jury who had been lockfd
up all night the 6,1,0 ei Ertiael3 ii ilj, ior t
der of Mr. Batcaon, were called into court, when the
foreman, in reply to the clerk of the Crown, stated that
they had not agreed, and they were ordered to retire
ence more to their room.
The two prisoners, Patrick Thornton, and Thomas
Hodgens, who had been arrested by the police on Thurs-
day behind a hedge on the road to Castleblaney, were
then placed at the bar, and indicted for illegally having
a blunderbuss in their possession within a proclaimed
district. The Attorney-General stated the case, and
examined some witnesses for the prosecution. The case
for the Crown havin; closed, the prisoner Hodgens,
in answer to the Clerk of the Crown, said they had no
witnesses, as they had no time to send for them. The
jury, without leaving the box, immediately handed
dawn a verdict of guilty.
Chief Justice Blackburn° then senten led the pri-
soners to two years imprisonment and hard labour, and
informed them that the Lord Lieutenant had power by
the special provisions of the Act, to alter the ordinary
place of the imprisonment and labour to one of a much
severer character.

_
The prisoners were then removed, and the Court was
adjourned for a short time.
Shortly after twelve o'clock at noon the judges came
into court, and it having been intimated that the jury in
the case of Francis Kelley had not agreed, end Dr.
w
Bolin,
a prisonerieic gentleman,s having deposed that two
of them were seriously unwell, they were discharged,
a
ordered back to gaol, and the
special commission declared adjourned.
The correspondent of the Louth Advertiser says—" I
theis
understand seven of the jury were for an acquittal. The
two prisoners. Francis Kelly and Owen Kelly will be
assizes of Monaghan. There was
have them admitted to bail. The
special has coat the county about 3,000/.
tnTroihe
eci
jpa ma
upt
Judges,
eh set
application
accompaniedcommission
ensuing
by the Attorney-General and
turned to Dublin yesterday (Tues-
day) were escorted from the town of
Monaghan, to the railway station at Castleblayney, by
a troop of dragoons."
dSaoyli)c Solicitor-General,
evening.G e ra.rl,
ILLNESS OF FATHER MATHEW.—The Even-
ing Post says:--"
received by a gentleman in this city, states that he had
B.
just heard the A letter from Cork, dated last evening.
Father Mathew; but we earnestly hope that the report
filleting intelligence of the death of
was unfounded, and that the life of this benefactor of the
human race may long be spared." The Cork papers
which came to hand this morning make no mention even
of the Reverend Gentleman's illness.
GOVERNOR OF THE FOUR COURTS MARSHALSEA,—
At length the vacancy in the Marshalsea, caused by the
death of Mr. J. D. Mullen, has been filled by the ap-
pointment of Captain Clements, a relative of the Earl of
Charlement.
with a residence, but likely to be reduced to 750/.
The present salary is 8701. per annum,
ARREST 0/, MR. JAMES BIRCH.—Yesterday Mr. J.
Birch, late proprietor of the World nevvapaper, and
plaintiff in the recent action against Sir William Somer-
ville, Chief Secretary for Ireland. was arrested on a bench
warrant, at the suit of Mrs. French, daughter of Mr.
Brewster, Q.C.,
who had addressed the jury for the de-
fendant in that action. It is said that this was the first
time the gentleman slept in his own house since the war-
rant was issued for his apprehension.

THE MARCHIONESS OF BATH AND
THEI vicARAGE OF FROME.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SlR,—Although various comments have been pub-
lished on this subject, it has not yet been made ma-
nifest in whtt capacity the Marchioness of Bath has
exercised the right of presentation ; and as the subject
is one of great interest, not only to the parishioners
of Frome, but to every other Protestant community
in the realm, perhaps you will afford the following
remarks a place in your valuable journal. First, it
was alleged that the Marchioness made the appoint-
ment as her son's guardian, subsequently, it was al-
leged, as trustee, and ultimately, it was insinuated,
as owner of the advowson. Now, Sir, if it be main-
tained that it was made as " guardian," it may be
observed ant " a guardian cannot present to a vacant
living in right of the infant heir (Co. Litt. b. 29, Ed.
111. c. 5, ard 3, Inst. 156) ; but " this must be done
by himself.' (1, Inst. 89, a, Shapland v. Ryols, bro.
Jac. 98 ; and Hearle v. Green, 3 Atkyn's Chancery,
Repts. p. 710.)—1f as trustee, it is almost unneces-
sary to observe, that there are few cases which come
before the Courts that involve points of greater legal
nicety that those relative to the duties and powers
of trustees , and this case, perhaps, there may have
been either misconception or ill advice.—lf as owner
of the adrawson' it will naturally excite astonish-
ment, as we find that the Longleat Estate was not
brought into the family by the Marchioness of Bath ;
our records inform us, that it has been in possession
of the noble house of Thynne for upwards of two
centuries, having been purchased of Sir Thomas Veva-
sour, by Sir Thomas Thynne, A.D., 1609 ; and that
the right of presentation of the vicarage of the
Church of Frome (which, it may be observed, was
vested in the crown from the time of the dissolution
of the Abbey of Cirencester, 31, Henry Bth, of which
it was anciently a possession, until the reign
of James Ist), was granted by letters patent
to Sir Thomas Thynne ; - and this right of pre-
sentation it is considered has been exercised
without interruption by the right heirs of the said Sir
Thomas Thyme, from the reign of King James until
the present time. Dispositions of the estate may
have been occasionally made by family settlements
and testamentary instruments, but whether such dis-
position be of sufficient force to oust the present heir
of a
worthy of conferredyrabY Royal Grant, is a question
Frome, but many other lay presentations still extant,
more particularly those
wo grave
e consideration, not only as regards
of infant heirs.
It appears, however, that the Bishop of Bath and
Wells has expressed his intention to institute Mr.
Bennett, declaring himself satisfied that the Reverend
Gentleman is attached "to all the doctrines of the
Church of England, repudiating all Romish doctrines.
Now, Sir, I perceive by the respectful and dignified
remonstrance addressed to the Bishop, by the clergy
and laity of Frome, that amongst other objectionable
passages to be found in Mr. Bennett's writings is the
following :—" All ideas of the Bible, and the dispens-
ing. of the Bible, as in itself a means of propagating
Christianity, are a fiction and
an absurdity." Surely,
Sir, it may be fearlessly asserted that language similar
to that just cited has not been enunciated even by
any Roman ecclesiastic, since the days of the Council
of Trent, when " the Bible was called by one Popish
prelate, Atramentum mortuum,' dead ink ; another
said, , Scripture est res inanimis et muta,' a dumb
inanimate thing ; and a third impiously mentioned
the sacred volume as ' nigrum Evangelium; the black
Gospel. (Ludovicus in Concilio Tridentino.) Se?,
Bishop Jewell " Apologia Ecclesim Aglicaem.
Isaacson's edit. Surely, Sir, it might have been
reasonably expected by a Christian community, that
the bishop would have exacted some public renuncia-
tions of the above-cited sentiments, ere be deemed
their author wortby
of
- his sacred approval—that after
having read and t
gaen his best attention to the
memorial, he would have required some disavowal,
however slight, of such pernicious principles,
and regret for the promulgation and diffusion
thereof, ere he assured the memorialists he was
" fully satisfied that Mr. Bennett has a firm
attachment to all the doctrines of the Church
of England, repudiating all Romish doctrines." As-
suming, Sir, that the Marchioness of Bath is entitled
to this presentation, it is still hoped that her Ladyship
will reconsider her appointment ' • and this hope is
induced by the fact, that the Noble Marchioness
stated in reply to the address presented by the clergy
and laity of Frome, that - she received with sincere
regret the communication. It is true that in the
reply it was added, " it cannot be revoked," never-
theless it may be satisfactory to her Ladyship to
learn that a presentation may be varied or revoked.
" There is no doubt," said Chief Justice de Grey,
" but that by our law a lay patron may revoke his
presentation at any time." (See ,c Rogers agst. Rolled
and ors., 2 Wm. Bla , 1.040.) Even the Canon
Law allows the patron to vary the presentation.
(Lyndw. e. 3, t. vi., p. 138.) But by the common
law of England it is expressly held that the patron
may revoke. (Latch's Repts., 192.)
Belgravia. A PROTESTANT.
P.S.—lt now appears that Mr. Bennet has been
inducted; that circumstance, however, does
not
affect the question to which this lamentable case has
given rise, for, if a presentation be originally erro-
neous, induction and institution does not cure the
error. The vicar must show a good title to the heir
when he becomes of
full age, and to any other person
of whom he may claim tithes, fees, &c. &c.

navy,Saturda A STANDING NAVY.
he leading article in your paper of last
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,---T
Saturday, on the system of maintaining the British
is calculated to do immense good. You will,
perhaps, be aware that I am in a position to inform
you that great has been its effect on the Board of
Admiralty, and that the charge you recommend will
ere long be adopted
As a seaman and an Englishman I don't know how
to express my thankfulness at finding your able and
powerful pen taking the only true and rational view
of the state, condition, and government of the British
navy. The
press teems with letters about invasion,
about arms, and other similar topics; but whether we
have peace or war, it deeply concerns the public to
know if the navy is made as efficient as possible, and
whether it might not be more ec,inomically governed.
There is no argument in favour of a regular or stand.
ing army that may not he still more strongly urged,
both on the grounds of economy and efficiency, in
favour of a regular navy, which ours is not.
No one in the Admiralty has yet been found who
has ventured to deny that the breaking up our ships
and crews every three years increases the expenditure
of the navy about one sixth. Neither have they
been able to refute the assertion that this method is
also the most ingenk.us devica fur rendering the navy
inefficient. As a professional man I give it as my
opinion that even at this moment we should be better