The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-21 00:00:00

MAILS DOE.

wrath.. and New Zealand, via douthampton June '9.
Ditto, via Yuseilles
orasil, Buenos Ayres, and Monte Video July 4
Ditto, by Prenoh packet
,ape Verde. by Brazil paotet . July 4
~ape of Good 1.1.,pe. Ascension, anti St. Helena... June 27.
„Attila, Penang. and Singapore, via Southampton. June
▪ tbrattar. via Southampton
indta.via Southampton Junc 19
unto, via Mansell es
Malta. milgypt, &O.
Ditto, Marseilles Tune 19
Newfoundland ...... .......
June 16

Mauritius, Cape of Good Hope, and Natal, via
benthanilton
Ditto, Marseilles ~ July I
Portugal ....
United States, k. anada, California, &0., by British

pack of
Ditto ditt c (Baltimore)

.June 12

COURSE OF EXCHANGE.

Amsterdam
Do
Rotterdam — ... 12 41 ... 12 4t
Antwerp —
... 25 44 . 25 524.
Brussels
Ramburgu — •• 13 12 ... 13 1211
Paris '
Short ... 25 40 ... 25 45
Ditto
Marseilles
Frankfort-on-the-Main ••• 121} ... 1211
Vienna — ... 12 6;i ... 12 72}
Trieste _ ... 12 67} ... 12 721
Petersburg
Copenhagen... ........ ...• ~ 9 25 ... 9 29
Berlin
Madrid..
Cadiz - "0 49 ... CI
Leghorn
Milan — ... 26 CO ... 26 70
Genoa — ... 26 60 ... 26 70
Naples
Palermo — ... 26 61) ... 26 76
Messina
Lisbon — ... 511
°Pore° — ••• Olt ••• 52
MO Janeiro
New York - ...

THE EASTERN FISHERIES.—The catches of
mackerel made by the Great Yarmouth boats have im-
proved during the past week. Some of the boats have
lauded at Yarmouth as many as 1,600 fish each. Prices
have ranged et Great Yarmouth at Its. to 21s. per 120
fish. The deliveries of mackerel made at Lowestoft have
ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 fish each. One day as many
as 107,000 fish wer3 lauded at Lowestoft.

THE PROSECUTION OF MR. BENNETT

FOB BERESE

The prosecution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett, the vicar of
Frome, reached another stage on Saturday. The Lord Chan-
cellor, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the
Right Hon. J. C. Napier, and the Eight Hon. Sir W. Erie
heard, as Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
the case of " S her pard v. P hillimore and Bennett (clerk)." It
will be remembered that Dlr. Bennett was charged with
heresy—the alleged heresy being a belief in the real pre-
sence in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Bishop of
London was compelled, by order of tho Court of Queen's
Bench, t..) issue letters of request to the Dean of Arches, ask-
ing him to try the charge, but when the said letters were
brought before him, Sir Robert Phillimore refused to accept
them, on the ground that there was no reason given why he
should do so. They were, ho said, letters, not of command,
but request. Against this refusal the plaintiff, Mr. Shep-
pard, of Frome, appea'el, and the case was thus brought be-
fore the Privy Council.

Mr. Stephens, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff Oppellaut),
and urged that Sir Robert Phillimore over-stepped his jut is-
diction in refusing the letters. Ifo pointed out that the old
Acts before 1810 left the Dean of Arches no clinic . Did
the Church Discipline Act leave him roam for refusing to
fellow a bishoP's request? Mr. Stephen urged n t. lla
liewed that the questions Lad cover beta raised before, and
that noju.tge bad ever attempted to use discretionary power.

Mr. Bennett refused to be represented by counsel. But
the Dean of Arches had himself been cited to appear, and
was represented by Mr. Phillimore. Mr. Phillimore did not
fcr one moment argue that the Dean had absolute power to
refuse well-founded letters of request; but as the words of
the judgment would show that what his lordship
claimed was a 'power to refuse them under certain
circumstances. In giving his decision, Sir Robert said—
"that ho refused to receive these letters unless they could
afford good reason why he should accept them," and be con-
tended that the Dean of Arches could use a discretionary
power in refusing to accept the letters unless good reason
was shown in them for hint to accept them.
The Lord Chancellor said that, suppose the bishop refused
letters to issue, and the judge refused, on the ground that ho
had no letters of request from the bishop, and the former
was cited by mandamus, ho would say, on the 7th section,
"I have sent it to tho Arches." That would bo a good
answer to the mandamus. And suppose the judge argued
in the same way, what would become of the suit? It

must drop.
Mr. Phillimore said the bishop would then still ba liable
to an arpeal to the archbishop.

At the conclusion of Mr. Phillimore's speech the Lord
Chancellor said that their lordships would teko into consi-
deration whether they should hear Mr. Stephens in reply, •
and would appoint a day to give their decision.