The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 18, 187 u.

ANOTHER ATTACK BY BRIGANDS.

Tie Vienna Wanderer publishes a telegram from Con-
stantinople stating that M. Gilbert, the French Consul,
had been attacked by brigands in the environs of Erze-
roum and was completely stripped. He narrowly escaped
with his life. The French Ambassador has remonstrated
energetically with the Porte.

THE CHARGE OF HERESY AGAINST
MR. BENNETT.

The hearing of the case against the Rev. William
Earley Bennett, vicar of Frome, for promulgating in his
written works doctrines contrary to those of the Church
of England, was resumed this morning, in the Court of
Arches, before Sir R. Phillimore, Dean. The defendant
was again called three times, but did not appear.

Mr. A. J. Stephens, Q.C., continued his quotations
from the writings of Mr. Bennett, and his arguments there-
upon. Having observed that this arrogant assumption of
the propitiatory sacrifice had been pre-eminently de-
nounced by eminent divines during every period of the
Reformation, the learned counsel referred to the
charge against Mr. Bennett of the adoration
of the Host, and quoted the words of the
reverend gentleman, in which he admitted that he
preached this adoration, and taught it to his people.
Jermey Taylor, and other eminent divines, said that this
was contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, for
the reason that Christ being in heaven, he could not be in
the elements, and the Church knows nothing of that spiri-
tual presence for which Mr. Bennett contended. By
maintaining this practice, then, he was guilty of idolatry.
The learned counsel then proceeded to sum up his evi-
dence, contrasting the propositions derived from the 39
Articles,. the formularies of the Church of England, and
the ()Onions of eminent divines with the deduction which
had been drawn from the writings of Mr. Bennett. He
submitted that he had made out his case against the rev.
gentleman in reference to every charge and that the
doctrines he held and taught were distinctly in opposition
to the laws of the Church of England.
Dr. Tristram then proceeded to address the court first of all
in reference to the statement of his lordship at an early
period of the case, that the question he should have to
consider was whether the words of Mr. Bennett were
capable of more than one meaning. He submitted that
it was impossible to come to any other conclusion thanthat
those words could only be construed as conveying doc-
trines totally at variance with the views of the
articles and formularies of the Church of England. Having
considered this point, it would be for his lordship to
say whether such views as those entertained by Mr.
Bennett could be permitted to be taught by any clergy-
man of that Church. As far as he could judge of Mr.
Bennett's views he must be either maintaining the Roman
Catholic doctrine that Christ had only one body after the
Resurrection, and that that was present in the elements;
or he must be maintaining the theory for which no
authority could be found whatever, namely, that Christ
had two bodies—one of which was natural and was in
heaven, and the other a supernatural one, which entered
into the elements by consecration. In conclusion he sub-
mitted that his lordship should read the words of Mr.
Bennett as an ordinary individual would read them.—
His lordship said it was a case of vast importance, not to
l'Jr. Bennett alone, but to many others, and he would
therefore take time to consider his judgment.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY.

The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at

five o'clock.

The Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Bill (No. 2) was read a
;econd time.

The Pier and Harbour Orders Compensation Bill was
read a second time.
The report of amendments on the Churchwardens' Lia-
bility Bill was brought up and received.
The Appellate Jurisdiction Bill passed through coin-

mittee.
The High Court of Justice Bill was read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass, the Marquis' of
SALISBURY objected to the reduction proposed in the
salaries of some of the judges, and, therefore, he moved
that clause 7 be struck out.
After some discussion the clause was omitted, and the
bill passed.
The report of amendments to the Sequestration Bill and
the Union of Benefices Bill was brought up and received.

THE IRISH LAND BILL.
The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed by
Lord LuRGAN, who approved of the measure, and ex-
pressed his thanks to the Government for having brought
it forward. He avowed bei•.ig a staunch supporter of
tenant right, and said he thought the legalising the Ulster
custom was a very wise and beneficial proceeding. Having
passed in review the attempts at legislation since the in-
troduction of Mr. Sherman Crawford's bill, he expressed
a hope that the bill of the Government would be passed
during the present session. He expressed himself in
favour of payment for goodwill as well as improvements,
and he could not agree with the noble duke opposite
(Abercorn) that the tenants and labourers would be placed
in a worse position than they were at present by the
passing of the bill.
Lord DUNSANY differed from the noble lord who had
just sat down, as he looked upon the present measure as
an intolerable invasion of the rights of property. He
hoped that very many of the objectionable provisions of
the bill would be removed in committee, and then pro-
ceeded to vindicate the Irish landlords from the charge of
having acted feloniously towards their tenants, and pointed
out that during the last 90 years the rents in Ireland had
doubled, although he had to admit that in England during
that time they had increased three-fold. The charge
against the landlords was absurd, because if the tenants
had been hardly treated, it was most unlikely that they
would have made those improvements for which the bill
proposed to give them compensation. He did not believe
that the alteration would end where the present bill left
it, but what the Government hag given to the hungry
men of Ireland they would be called upon to give to the
hungry men of England, and that, too, in a manner that
would not admit of refusal.

Lord GRANVILLE thought it a wise step to establish the
Ulster custom where it existed, but he was of opinion
that it would have been much better had they extended it
throughout the country. He thought much of the misery
that existed In Ireland was entirely owing to the proceed-
ings of the speculators in the Encumbered Estates Court,
who purchased property to make P. profit, and they did
that by increasing the rent, and that to a point which it
was impossible for the tenant to pay. He was highly
gratified at the insertion of a clause in the bill to give
compensation to the tenant for disturbance. He hoped
the Government would adhere to that provision, as the
value of th 6 measure entirely depended upon the manner
in which that clause was passed. The bill as it now stood
would put an end to capricious and arbitrary evictions,
and would tend more than anything he was aware of to
prove to the Irish people that the English Parliament was
not indifferent to their prosperity.
The Earl of LEITRIM strongly opposed the bill. He
believed it had been brought forward to maintain the
present Government in their security, and for that object
only. He denied that there had been any agitation for it
in Ireland ; the outcry had been got up solely in England,
in order that the spoliation begun by the abolition of the
Irish Church might be continued. The action of the
Government had been altogether oppressive in Ireland.
It was an undeniable fact that all the taxes raised in Ire-

land were spent in England, and the only persons in the
employ of the Crown resident there were policemen. It
was a paltry excuse for the introduction of such an objec-
tionable bill as that now under discussion to say that it
had become necessary because employment was not given
by the Irish landlords. In his opinion the bill, instead
of being one for the improvement of Ireland, was one for
the extermination of small tenants. He hoped that '
nothing would be assented to by their lordships which
would prevent the ordinary contracts being entered into
between landlord and tenant, as the withdrawal of such a
power would create the greatest discord and disaffection.
The Earl of LITCHFIELD said he was desirous that the
bill should be passed with as little delay as possible, and
with but few alterations in its general principle ; at the
same time he felt that some amendment was required
in order to prevent future discontent and litigation. He
objected to the clause which legalised the Ulster tenant
right. It was sufficient to ascertain clearly what Ulster
right really was, but so far as he understood it was the
principle of paying a man for the goodwill on giving up
possession,. This ko 'warded as objectionable, and alto-
gether inconsistent with the principles on which compen-
sation was given for loss of occupation under the third
clause. Compensation for loss of occupation in its opera-
tion ought to be confined to cases where a substantial ex-
penditure had been made by the tenant in effecting im-
provements.
The Earl of CLANCARTY said he felt greatly disappointed
at the bill, and it was his firm belief that it would alto-
gether fail to restore peace in Ireland, whilst it would de-
prive the landlord of the management of his property,
and create unheard-of litigation. He thought the Go-
vernment altogether wrong in branding the Irish land-
lords as oppressive, when it was a well-known fact that
rents were lower than in any part of the kingdom. One
of the great objects of the bill was to prevent capricious
evictions, and in that provision he concurred.
Lord POWERSCOURT supported the bill, as, in his opi-
nion, it would do no harm to the just landlord, whilst it
would restrict and restrain the oppression of those who
did not belong to that class.
The Earl of PORTARLINGTON thought the present state of
Ireland justified any Government in attempting to grapple
with the land question. He fully admitted that the pre-
sent attempt was not made in a party spirit, and the best
course therefore to pursue was to read the bill a second
time, and then do all that was possible in committee to
remedy some of the defects which the bill, as it now
stood, contained.
The Marquis of LANspowNE, as an Irish landlord
and a member of the Government, heartily supported the
second reading of the bill on its merits, and also because
it provided compensation for tenants on being disturbed
in their holdings. The object of legislation was to relieve
small tenants, and this the measure did most effectually,
without injuring the interests of the landlord. The
clause which enacted that in the absence of proof the
presumption should be that improvements were made by
the tenants was both fair and just. The rights which the
bill conferred he trusted would induce the tenant to arrive
at a true sense of his duty. Hitherto he had been
wanting in self-reliance, but he thought for the future he
would avoid committing his conscience to any other keep-
ing than his own.
The Earl of CARNARVON stated that he should support
the bill for the sake of the Irish people, who had been
distracted by agitation ; but on any other ground it
appeared to him the measure was altogether a retrograde
one. He contended that it involved to a certain extent
the transfer of proprietary rights without giving the land-
lord compensation. He doubted much what would be
the effect of multiplying small holdings as proposed by
the bill, as he thought they had too many already. He
felt the measure would increase litigation, which could
not but produce anything but good results. The whole
object of the bill was the pacification and satisfaction
of Ireland. He hoped it would be so, but he must say
he entertained doubts on the point. He should vote for
the second reading, as it expressed the wish of the English
Parliament to do all in its power for the good of Ireland,
and hoped after the bill passed the people in that country
would obey the law of the empire.
The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the bill from the
strictures that had been passed upon it. He denied that
the bill interfered with the rights of property, and con-
tended that it was founded altogether in precisely the
opposite direction. It had been asked, what do you give
the landlord for what was taken from him by the present
bill? And to that he answered that he was given in-
creased prosperity. The noble earl had asked whether it
was thought that the tenants wanted increased rent?
and replied in the affirmative, if he was given increased
security. He firmly believed that the bill would check
capricious evictions, and although there were many good
landlords in Ireland there were some that could not pro-
perly be termed as belonging to that class,
and it was impossible to deny that the serving
of one unjust notice to quit was quite sufficient
to produce the utmost alarm and a state of great insecurity.
The noble lord then proceeded to answer the objections
urged against the bill, which involved freedom of contract
and the presumption that improvements were made by
the tenants. He said they were engaged in doing what
was right and just, and as concessions had been made,
and as the principle of the bill had been admitted, he

hoped that they would go into committee, with the desire
to save Ireland from the difficulties and miseries into
which she had been plunged. But if it was attempted
to change the measure, from a tenants' to a 'landlords' bill,
the whole endeavour of the Government would be
defeated, and he should tremble at tho result the disap-
pointment would cause.

The Duke of RUTLAND having said he should support
the second reading,
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question from the wool-
sack, when the bill was read a 'second time without a
division, and the committee fixed for Thursday next.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter past twelve.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
The Speaker took the chair at ten minutes past