would have been content to allow the question to go to a division in its then state; but, having moved the adjournment of the debate, it formed a part of his duty to address to the House a few observations on the subject under discussion. He was at a loss to discover on what general grounds the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) could be resisted, or the Amendment that had been proposed to it adopted. His hon. Friend had stated his facts in perfect sincerity, and only asked the House to inquire how far they were true; and if they were so, how far they were consistent with the interests to be maintained by a Protestant people. It had been objected that the language used and the case stated by his hon. Friend, and the confidence he had expressed, tended rather to a repeal of the Act of 1S45, than to support a Motion for inquiry; but certainly this was the first time he had ever heard the confidence expressed by the mover in the truth of his Motion used as an argument against it. If his hon. Friend had moved the repeal of the Act of 1845, he (Mr. Freshfield) could well understand such an objection; but his hon. Friend had made no such proposition; and he had only asked the House to inquire into how many of the facts were true, and if those which were so were inconsistent with the rights of the Protestant religion of this country. The next objection to the Motion was that of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), who said that inquiry was useless, as nothing could be done in consequence of the near dissolution of Parliament. But that was not the fault of his (Mr. Fresh-field's) hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had given notice of his Motion so early as the 23rd of February. It had been postponed from time to time under circumstances over which he had no control, and on the 11th of May it was distinctly submitted to the consideration of the House, and an Amendment proposed to it. How unreasonable was it, therefore, if, from circumstances over which his hon. Friend had no possible control, the discussion on his Motion had lingered on to the 8th of June, to infer that this Motion was less appropriate now than it was at any former period. If there had been any general desire to come to a conclusion on the question, it might have been arrived at long ago; and it was certainly no argument to say that nothing could be done, as the Session had so nearly reached its termination, for who could say how long Parliament would sit, or when it would be dissolved? It was consequently no argument against the Motion to urge that nothing could be clone in the way of inquiry before the dissolution of Parliament, as the period of that dissolution was altogether uncertain. Surely it was not competent for those who opposed this Motion now to come down to the House and say, "Well, there has been so much delay you cannot now proceed." Was it to be permitted that those who did the wrong should take advantage of it, and argue upon it? Inquiry, however, was generally agreed to be necessary. Was the hon. Member for Youghal the person who objected to inquiry? [Mr. ANSTEY: Hear, hear!] On the contrary, that hon. and learned Member said the inquiry did not go far enough, and he desired a Bill for the particular purpose of going further. A more serious objection, however, to the Motion, because of the source from which it came, was that of the noble Lord the Member for London. That noble Lord had announced his intention of showing that a Motion for inquiry was materially distinguishable from the Motion before the House; that a Motion for an inquiry, by a Select Committee, differed from a general proposal for inquiry. Was that not differing upon terms, rather than dealing with the substance of the Motion? And, even supposing that the noble Lord succeeded in proving that a difference actually existed in point of form, would it not be believed by the hundreds of thousands who have petitioned for inquiry, that there was another term applicable to the case besides that "of insincerity," with which it had already been charged, namely, evasion. Assuming, however, that a resolution declaring the necessity for inquiry had been adopted instead of his hon. Friend's Motion for a Committee, the objection would naturally have been that a resolution would not be the usual course at the close of a Parliament; because, though it might bind for a few days the present, it could not be acted on by the future Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that if the noble Lord entertained a doubt on this point, he would not shape his objection in the form of a technical distinction, because whatever might be the form, the Motion was in substance a proposal to inquire; and whether by a Committee, now that no Committee was likely to sit, ought not to be regarded as the real question; for of all the other courses that could be taken, it would be the most unwise to adopt when all sides of the House were deprecating "a cry." What, indeed, was so likely to create a cry as to tell the hundreds of thousands of petitioners for inquiry, that there was a distinction between the present Motion in the now state of the Session, and a resolution that inquiry ought to take place, and that their prayer should be negatived on that account. That was not the mode of satisfying public feeling. Let the House, however, adopt the Motion, which would amount, at least, to a resolution that inquiry was desirable, and it would show to the Protestant people of England that at some time or other there would be inquiry—that the general proposition had been affirmed; there would no longer be the necessity for agitation, since that which they had asked, the House had done so far as it had the power, and there had been expressed a determination that there should be inquiry. It was generally admitted that there ought to be, and must be, inquiry. He looked for the individual who should say no, and he looked in vain. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) had said that inquiry would redound to the credit of Maynooth, but that he should vote against the Motion—an illogical corollary certainly. The hon. and learned Gentleman undertook to vindicate Maynooth from the charge of Italian policy, by stating that the first two teachers at that College were actually Frenchmen; and the House was so very tolerant of bad argument, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman assumed the inference that since Cisalpine, and not Ultramontane, doctrine was taught on the foundation of this establishment by the teachers in question, it necessarily so continued up to 1851, he was not contradicted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, however, not stated who were the trustees of Maynooth in 1850; neither did he refer to the change that had taken place since that time, nor reason on what would probably be the future policy of Archbishop Cullen and the two other archbishops, as co-trustees of that college. Indeed, it was impossible that the objectionable doctrines maintained by those individuals out of the college, should not, under their administration as trustees, have at least equal influence for evil within its walls. Every argument of his hon. and learned Friend assumed the character of a demonstration; one of his arguments was, that as the course of education in Maynooth comprised eight years, and as the Act of 1845 did not come into operation until 1846, no mischief could have been caused by the spread of the doctrines there inculcated, even if they wore as bad as they had been represented. It had not, however, occurred to his hon. and learned Friend to state, that in 1846 Maynooth was not empty; but, on the contrary, that there were many students then of six, five, four, and three years' standing, and that these were sent forth indoctrinated with those views which had been objected to. In 1830 and 1834 the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops had certainly prohibited their priests from interfering in matters of a political character; and it had been urged that Sir Robert Peel, cautious statesman as he was, would never have proposed converting the annual grant to Maynooth into a fixed sum by Act of Parliament, unless he had been perfectly acquainted with the whole character of the institution, and the answers of the Roman Catholic prelates had been perfectly satisfactory. But why were they to take it for granted that Sir Robert Peel knew all the "ins and outs" of Maynooth? Why, the very circumstance of the Act of 1845 having been passed, was a subject of legitimate inquiry, and the people of England had a full right to know the grounds upon which it was based, if they chose to demand that knowledge. He did not complain of the existence of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, or of the equality of civil rights accorded to Roman Catholics, or that Roman Catholics should be taught the tenets of their own faith; neither did his hon. Friend, nor those who supported his Motion. The ground they took was this, that inasmuch as there were hundreds of thousands of persons who had petitioned the House against the grant to Maynooth on conscientious doubts, they were entitled to know that the sum which had been bestowed for years upon that college, and which had been confirmed by Act of Parliament in 1845, was administered fairly for the Roman Catholics, and not offensively towards the Protestants—that it had been properly and not mischievously applied. They had a right to have their minds set at rest from doubts as to the propriety of the application of the grant; they had a right to know that erroneous doctrines which they might tolerate they did not encourage. Nay, more, injustice to the college itself it was only right that the doubts which existed on this subject should he cleared up or confirmed. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had suggested the issue of a Commission by the Government to inquire into the subject. He (Mr. Fresh-field) agreed with the right hon. Member for Taunton that little else could be done in the matter this Session than to declare and resolve there should be inquiry; but much more might be done by a Commission. If the Government saw fit to advise the Queen to issue such a Commission, he did not see how the College of Maynooth could take offence at inquiry in the face of the inquiry pursued into the English Universities; and he could not conceive they would judge so ill as to resist affording all the information that should be sought. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, too, might justify such a course by his own conduct with respect to the Papal aggression in the early part of last year, when he recommended careful inquiry before doing anything. This was enough to show that the noble Lord needed not to shrink from advising the issue of such a Commission. The report of such a Commission might be perfectly satisfactory; and, if not, the circumstance would be a ground for inquiry in Committee in another Parliament. For his own part, he (Mr. Preshfield) should enter upon any such inquiry without prejudice, and with the same anxious responsibility as a sworn juryman. He hoped, as there was not much time for the debate, Gentlemen would address themselves to the question whether it was asking too much that the matter should be left in that state which ought to satisfy the people of England, and without which they ought not to be satisfied.

said, that he had not intended to intrude himself upon the attention of the House; but having given notice of an Amendment, which he found the forms of the House would not allow him to propose, it had been his intention to give a silent vote against both the Motion and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Anstey). His object in rising was to add his recommendation to that of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the Government should adopt the course pointed out by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. If the real object of this Motion was fair and legitimate inquiry, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire could not resist the proposition; and he would show his sincerity by withdrawing the Motion, on which he admitted inquiry was impossible. It had been objected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Royal Commission would not have the power of compelling unwilling witnesses to give information, and that therefore it would not be satisfactory to the people of this country. Now the noble Lord the Member for the City of London stated that he considered the very worst tribunal before which an inquiry of this nature could take place was a Select Committee of the House of Commons. In that opinion he most cordially joined; but the difficulty would be solved by adopting his (Mr. H. Herbert's) Amendment, which had reference to inquiry by the visitors. The Home Secretary said the reports of the Maynooth Commissioners were meagre, and contained no information; that proved that inquiry was unnecessary. If an architect reported that no repair was needed in your house, the report might be called meagre. At present, the Lord Lieutenant had the power to order a special inquiry whenever it was deemed necessary. To this it might be objected that the inquiry would take place under certain restrictions. But Sir Robert Peel stated in 1845 that unless such restrictions were made the grant would be utterly useless; for it was necessary to show Roman Catholics that no interference would be made with the free exercise of their religion; but the restriction preventing interference with religion, except by those members of the commission who were Roman Catholics, would commend itself to most men of sense, and the substance of that restriction ought to be embodied in instructions to a Committee, if ever the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) should hereafter be so fortunate as to obtain one. What was the nature of the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire proposed? Was he going to refer to a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions? Was he going to refer to a Committee of that House the momentous and ever-memorable question, "What is truth?" He hoped that House would never sanction a proceeding which would give rise to such scenes as would take place in the Committee-room if that was to be the nature of the inquiry. It might be objected that the constitution of the visitors was such that they were not a body which could enter into a fair and impartial inquiry. But hon. Members opposite could not be ignorant that there were eight visitors, three chosen by the College of Maynooth, and five by the Crown. Would they propose to inquire by a tribunal composed of persons like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who openly declared, and rather rejoiced in the idea of being classed with those most hostile to Maynooth? Did they wish the inquiry to be conducted by the open, sincere, and candid enemies to that institution? He supposed they would hardly think it decent or right to have a tribunal without both sides of the question being represented upon it. He could not understand, then, any fairer mode than by means of the visitors. If there was any unfairness in the constitution of that body, it Was against the College of Maynooth, the college being represented by only three, whilst the Crown nominated five of the visitors, with the power to order additional inquiry if any of the reports were unsatisfactory. It appeared to him most utterly absurd, and a most dangerous principle to establish, that a private Member might come forward and supersede a tribunal constituted by Parliament, and extremely well adapted for the purpose for which it was constituted. If that tribunal was incompetent, its reports meagre and unsatisfactory, and proper application had been made to the Government to order inquiry, the Government might upon their own responsibility have said to Parliament "the tribunal you have constituted does not possess sufficient powers, and it is for you to grant the Government a tribunal which shall institute a fair inquiry." That, he thought, ought to have been the course for the Government to have adopted, and not followed in the wake of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, in superseding the authority of a tribunal constituted by that House. He would not enter into the question connected with the college, or the policy of its endowment, nor should he have risen on this occasion, did he not feel that if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was sincere in his desire for inquiry, he would adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge.

considered it was the duty of Government to give sufficient information to the House on the subject, in order that the House might come to a proper decision on the question. He had intended to say a few words—not in vindication of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, for he needed no vindication—but the remarks of the hon. Member opposite rendered that course unnecessary. His hon. Friend had not brought forward any Motion for the purpose of suppressing Maynooth, but only for an inquiry into the system of education pursued in that institution. The college was supported by a grant from the Imperial Treasury, and Government were responsible for the proper application of the grant. The college was established for educational purposes; and when it was a matter of doubt whether the education at that seminary was such as it ought to be, when those who were educated there were of one sect, and professed a religion which was not the religion of the State, it was but right that the State should exercise a power of supervision—which it ought to exercise, more especially as it had endowed and become responsible for the institution. The object of that institution was to bring up clergymen for the Church of Rome. Was it not right, then, that Parliament should know what was the kind of instruction they received there, and to what section of the Roman Catholic Church the Maynooth professors belonged '? Members accustomed to travel knew that there were two descriptions of Roman Catholics, one of which taught that "the Pope had no right to interfere with Sovereigns, and the other that no Sovereign had a right to expect allegiance from his subjects unless a higher authority—to wit, the Pope—acquiesced. To which section did Maynooth belong? Did it hold the authority of the Pope to be superior to the Sovereign, or did its views resemble those of the Roman Catholics who long existed in France, and who declared that neither Pope nor Council had a right to interfere with the Sovereign? It was stated that the most rancorous intolerance was taught at Maynooth; such doctrines, for instance, as that heresy and heretics ought to be punished by death. These things ought to be inquired into. Within his own knowledge he could say a treatise on education had been written by Delahogue, a professor of Maynooth, and that book was one of the authorised works of the College of Maynooth. The hon. and gallant Member read the following extract from the work:—

"The Church retains her jurisdiction over all apostates, heretics, schismatics, although they no longer appertain to her body; just as a military officer has a right of decreeing severe punishment against a soldier who deserts, even though his name may have been erased from the muster-roll."

If the civil authorities admitted or connived at such doctrines, there was no liberty of conscience; and were such a charge made against any institution to which he (Sir W. Vorner) belonged, he would never rest till the fullest inquiry had taken place, and the matter been settled one way or other. A charge was once brought in that House against a highly respectable body to which he belonged. Inquiry was called for; those hon. Gentlemen with whom he was acting as a leader in that body came forward to a man, and not only joined in the proposal for inquiry, but gave all the assistance in their power to carry out the fullest inquiry. That institution, he was happy to say, came out of the inquiry perfectly free from all the charges made. In Ireland denunciations from the altar were frequently followed by the loss of life; and he had received a letter in which the writer said he hoped the Com- mittee appointed to inquire into outrages in Ireland would propose that Parliament should "pass a law to prevent the Roman Catholic clergy from denouncing persons in their chapels; not long ago he had been denounced because it was not his pleasure or convenience to contribute the sum pointed out by the priest to build him a house on another gentleman's property."[Cries of "Name!"and "Who is the writer?"] He was not going to hand the writer over to the assassin—

If the hon. and gallant Member withholds the name, the only conclusion to which this House can come is, that the statement is not true.

I call upon the hon. Member to retract the expression he has just used.

I used the expression with reference to the letter, not to the hon. and gallant Member.

The hon. Member made use of the expression, that the statement made by an hon. Member was not true; that language is unparliamentary.

I only made use of the words in a Parliamentary sense (Laughter.)

For the twenty years which he had sat in that House, he had never made a statement which he could not prove. They who advocated the inquiry had been charged by hon. Members opposite with bigotry and other feelings, which he hoped would never find place in his or any other hon. Member's breast. He would read another extract from a communication by a highly-respectable gentleman, which would prove the effect of the teaching at Maynooth. ["Name!"] Hon. Members should have the name if required. The writer said—

"I entertain no doubt that the disorders which originate in hatred of Protestantism have been increased by the Maynooth education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It is the Maynooth priest who is the agitating priest; and if the foreign educated priest be a more liberal-minded man, less a zealot, and less a hater of Protestantism than is consistent with the present spirit of Catholicism in Ireland, straightway an assistant, red-hot from Maynooth, is appointed to the parish. In no country in Europe, no not even in Spain, is the spirit of Popery so intensely anti-Protestant as in Ireland."

The name of this gentleman was Inglis. Another writer said—

"As I departed from the college, I could not but reflect with melancholy interest on the prodigious moral power lodged within the walls of that mean, rough-cast, and white-washed range of buildings; what a vomiting of fiery zeal for worthless ceremonies and fatal errors. Thence runs the priestly deluge, issuing like an infant sea; or rather, like a fiery flood from its roaring crater, pours over the parishes of Ireland, to repress all spiritual improvement by their anti-Protestant enmities and their cumbrous rites."

This was the opinion expressed by the Rev. Baptist Noel. An hon. Member, not then in his place, had told the House that the Motion was a sham; that hon. Member had told the House he was surrounded in Ireland by a Roman Catholic population, and therefore he trusted the House would do nothing to irritate the Roman Catholics. But he asked the House whether it was not the duty of Government equally to take care that the interests of the Protestant population were not sacrificed. He would ask the House to say whether the hon. Member's speech to which he had alluded was not meant rather for the hustings than for that House. He trusted the House would decide upon having a full inquiry to ascertain whether a public grant given for one purpose was not applied to another.

I shall take the same view of the proposed inquiry that has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, and by the hon. Member for Boston, and which was followed up by the hon. Member for Kerry—all Gentlemen whom I believe to be perfectly sincere in this matter. There can be no sort of objection to an inquiry of a fair character, just as suggested by those hon. Members, that will not extend itself into a discussion of the tenets of the Catholic religion, or into the doctrines and discipline of that Church. There is no doubt whatever, that with this one salvo, an inquiry can be made by the existing visitors, to the fullest extent, and also upon oath. The inquiry need not even he so restricted as that, because an inquiry can take place into the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church by the present visitors, if the Lord Lieutenant orders it. Under the words of the Act of Parliament, such an inquiry can be made by the Roman Catholic visitors, in the presence of the Protestant visitors. I am sure the House will not expect me to follow the hon. Member for North Warwickshire through all the doctrines of De La Hogue and of Bailly, to which he has referred. The mode in which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward his Motion had equal reference to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1826, when a full and searching inquiry was made; and in the year 1845, when the latest Act with reference to Maynooth was passed, increasing its endowment to 26,000l. a year; and I have not heard him make any observation that is not as applicable to the College of Maynooth in the year 1826, or in the year 1845, as at the present day. His speech contained an immense mass of vituperation and misrepresentation respecting the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, but every word of it was equally applicable to the Roman Catholic Church as it has existed for many centuries past. Therefore it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary entirely abandoned those obsolete grounds, and, seeing it was necessary to take a different position, he says that some portion of the Maynooth grant has been applied towards the education of Roman Catholic clergymen for America, and thus that the grant has not been applied to the object for which it was intended, but that some part of it has been diverted from its original purpose in order to educate Roman Catholic priests for foreign countries. That being his ground for an inquiry, another ground, namely, that of modern Ultramontanism, is urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. His legal acumen has induced him to put forward that additional reason, seeing that the grounds already relied upon were wholly untenable, and that unless something has occurred since 1845, that would authorise an inquiry, he cannot maintain it on any ground that occurred before 1845, without convicting the present Premier and some other Members of his Government of the grossest contradictions and inconsistencies. I do not mean to impute to the Mover or Seconder of this Motion that they are not perfectly sincere in their common object; but I assert they are not sincere in saying that their object is a fair inquiry. They avow that they regard the proposed inquiry as a mere step towards abolishing Maynooth altogether. They are at present quite prepared to abolish it without any inquiry, and all they can want is to have an inquisition to find the King's title and upset this Royal grant. It is altogether a sham in them to propose this inquiry; if they were in earnest about it, they have the means open to them of having an inquiry at once. They can have an inquiry upon oath, in the most strict and searching form, under the powers vested in the pre- sent visitors of the college. They admit they cannot possibly have an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons during this Session; and if they are sincere, what harm can it be to have a preliminary inquiry made by the present visitors? Even should it prove unsatisfactory, which I am very far from anticipating, it will afford information to the House to enable it to come to a just decision next Session. I do not object to an inquiry at all as a Roman Catholic. I am ready that the most searching inquiry should take place; but I object to an unfair inquiry before a tribunal which, according to the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for London, who has much experience in those matters, is the very worst possible tribunal for an inquiry of this nature. If hon. Members opposite really wish for an inquiry, their object must therefore be to have it before an unfair tribunal; but I object altogether to any unfair or insulting inquiry. I object to going out of the ordinary course without necessity, and without any proof being brought forward to show the slightest reason for it. There being no evidence of any sort to show that there is anything wrong taught in the College of Maynooth, and there being a great deal of evidence directly to the contrary, it is perfectly plain that inquiry is not the object. The hon. Member for Boston has stated that the people of England call for an inquiry, but I say that the people of England are not calling for any inquiry; but some few of them are asking for the abolition of the Maynooth grant. I am aware that there are about '500,000 persons who have been induced to sign petitions against this miserable grant; but I am not aware that any portion of the English people have called for an inquiry, except the hon. Gentlemen the two Members for North Warwickshire, and the Member for Boston, who, perhaps upon some Tooley-street principle, designate themselves the people of England. No portion of the Protestants of Ireland have demanded an inquiry that would interfere with the Maynooth grant—they know their own interests too well to do so. They know the Maynooth grant is the greatest safeguard of the Protestant Established Church in Ireland. But there is a very small section of the people of England who have been put forward to sign petitions and to ask for an inquiry, without having the slightest knowledge of the subject-matter of their petitions. In the year 1845 a very great cry was got up amongst the people of England against the Maynooth grant, asking not for an inquiry into its application, but for, its total abolition. On that occasion, as was stated the other evening by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, there were no less than 1,500,000 petitioners against the continuance of that grant; but there are only about 300,000 at the present moment. And what did Lord Stanley say on that occasion in the House of Lords? He said he had looked into the petitions, that he saw the way the petitions had been got up in England, and the reasons which they assigned, and that these were matters which the House had a right to examine into. He made these statements upon a Motion in the House of Lords, in the year 1845, for an inquiry into Maynooth College, being an Amendment on the proposition to increase the grant. He then stated that he had looked into the mode by which the petitions had been obtained, and he added that he would not be governed even by 1,500,000 petitioners, unless he concurred in their reasons for interfering with the grant. Now, we know very well that on the present occasion the petitions have also been got up in England by a number of discontented clergymen and mistaken fanatics (I mean no offence to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire), and that the honest and intelligent people of England are not for this absurd and sham inquiry, nor are they for the abolition of this miserable and paltry grant. Upon reading Lord Stanley's speech in regard to the petitions of 1845 it occurred to me to look at the petitions printed according to the orders of the House on that day, the 12th of May, 1852, and I there found eight of these anti-Maynooth petitions. [The hon. Gentleman here went through the eight petitions, showing that each of them had emanated from Protestant and Presbyterian clergymen of England and Scotland, with the exception of one, which he stated, appeared to have been got up by the Maynooth detective, Mr. J. W. M'Gregor, secretary to the London Protestant Alliance Association, and son of Sir Duncan M'Gregor, chief of the Irish constabulary force, and a director of the Protestant Alliance.] The right hon. the Attorney General for Ireland had said that the words Popery and Papist were terms of offence, and were not generally used at the present day; but in one of these petitions, containing about a dozen lines, these expressions were repeated no less than eight times by the incumbent of a parish and his two curates. These eight petitions, as was intimated by Lord Stanley, in regard to the petitions of 1845, have been got up by particular men for a particular object, and for a very mistaken object. That such petitions should be signed by members of the Free Church of Scotland, is very natural, because it is their wish to upset all church establishments. And if those petitions are successful, they may lead to an investigation of all endowments for every religious establishment in the three kingdoms. If hon. Gentlemen are really in earnest in wishing for an inquiry, and are desirous of obtaining information they believe they do not possess, they will adopt the suggestion of their own Friend the hon. Member for Boston, and let an inquiry take place between this and next Session, in the only way they admit it can take place—either by Royal Commission, or, if they do not like that suggestion, and they insist that Royal Commissions cannot examine upon oath, let it be made by the visitors of the college, who have, under the Act of Parliament, most extensive powers to examine upon oath—who can inquire into everything connected with the College—who can examine the very servants and menials of the College, and into everything relating to it, with the only single restriction, that the Protestant visitors cannot examine into the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church; but even they may have that doctrine and discipline examined into in their presence by the Catholic visitors. The Act of 1845 did not impose more restrictions than that of 1800, and the only limits to the powers of the visitors is as to matters relating to the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, who are those ex-officio visitors? In 1800 they were the Protestant Chancellor, and the three Protestant Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts, and after the Act of 1845 two elected visitors were to be named, and five additional visitors were to be appointed by the Crown. With the powers conferred under that Act, the Lord Lieutenant may to-morrow direct a special inquiry to be made by the present visitors for the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are really anxious to obtain information with respect to this College; and if they are in want of it, what objection can they have to such an inquiry? It would not interfere with the appointment of a Committee next Session, should the House so think fit; but if the Government are in earnest, why should they wish to defer a proper investigation, or to throw the responsibility of it off their own shoulders? Why did they not direct that it should take place at once? The first of the visitors was the Duke of Leinster, a Protestant nobleman, the first in point of rank in Ireland, upon whose grounds the College was built, whose avenue-gate was opposite to that of the College—who was almost always on the spot, and intimately acquainted with its internal regulations. The second visitor was another Protestant Irishman, the Earl of Rosse, whose very name conferred a proud distinction on the whole Empire; and the third was also a distinguished Protestant, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. These were the three Protestant ex-officio visitors, and the Roman Catholics were the Earl of Fingal and the Chief Baron of Ireland. Is it possible to imagine a more satisfactory tribunal, or one more competent to do everything which could satisfy the most suspicious Protestant of the Empire. The Lord Lieutenant had a power to institute the most searching investigation into all matters connected with the College; and would not such a course be preferable to listening here to the horrible, abominable, and unfounded calumnies heaped upon us and upon our ancient faith in the presence of English Protestant Gentlemen? If the hon. Gentleman will shape his Motion in that way, we can at once put an end to the debate; but though we challenge and invite a full and fair investigation, we do object to have an unfair inquiry of an insulting character, or before a prejudiced tribunal—a mere sham, got up for electioneering purposes, not, perhaps, by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but by other interested parties, for it is notorious that this Motion is a mere English clap-trap, for the coming elections. Sir, I put it again and again to the Government to institute, on their own responsibility, a fair and full inquiry, to put an end to a state of things which has more public mischief in it than some may imagine, for it will disturb the good feeling which ought to exist between the people of England and Ireland—the subjects of the same United Kingdom. If the present Motion for an extraordinary inquiry were to be carried out and acted on, we all know very well what sort of an investigation would be had before a Committee of the House of Commons. We have very recent experience in regard to the Mortmain and the Crime and Outrage Committees; we know the way in which witnesses might be summoned, and that their examinations might be conducted according to the peculiar views of the majority of such a Committee, and, without meaning any personal imputation on the motives of such Gentlemen, according to the conscientious prejudices and bigoted convictions of its members. We are perfectly well aware on whose side the majority of the Committee would be found, and that out of the fifteen Members composing it, at least two-thirds or three-fourths would be opposed to Maynooth. That would be an extraordinary mode of conducting an impartial inquiry. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to maintain that the Catholics of Ireland were entitled to the continuance of the grant on the three grounds, of faith and compact, of right and justice, or of "pure policy, without regard to any abstract principle of right or wrong." If there was no virtual compact existing, and no right derived from the payment of their share of taxation, it was a matter of prudence and wisdom to continue it. The Catholics of Ireland were 5,000,000, the Protestants of the Established Church about 600,000. This grant was therefore about a penny a head, while the entire revenue of the Established Church in Ireland was not less than two millions a year; and it required, moreover, another million a year for the police force and military to support it. No such state of things prevailed in any State on the Continent—was it wise, then, to provoke such an inquiry as the present? The property of the Roman Catholic Church had been wrested from her at the Reformation, and handed over to the Protestant Church. It was absurd to argue, as had been done, that the whole prelates of Ireland went over to the Reformed Church in a body; for the actual dominion of the English in Ireland at that time extended over a few only of the smallest counties; but if the prelates did go over, did it follow that they took the property of the Church with them? If a Protestant bishop were to go over to the Roman Catholic Church, would he take the revenues of his see with him? As an Irish Member of Parliament, and a Roman Catholic, he did not maintain that this property should be restored to the Roman Catholic Church; but if he he were to look at this grant of 26,000l. a year to Maynooth in the light of a partial restitu- tion, it amounted not to a penny in the pound, but to a penny in five pounds. I shall now proceed to show that were there no question of State policy involved in the circumstance of this small grant to Maynooth, and were the Catholics of Ireland not entitled to it as a matter of common justice, they would still have a right to it, upon the ground of good faith, and a distinct compact on the part of the British Government. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to state the circumstances preceding the foundation of Maynooth, from the Treaty of Limerick to the French Revolution; showing the infraction of that treaty; the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics of Ireland were placed; and the gradual concessions that were made. We have it, Sir, in the records of Parliament, that in 1808 returns were obtained by the present Duke of Wellington, then Sir Arthur Wellesley, and Chief Secretary for Ireland, which showed that in the year 1793 the Catholics of Ireland possessed no less than 478 endowments or bourses for educating their clergy in foreign colleges, of which 348 were in France alone. In that year, however, the Catholics were deprived of all those French bourses, and were forced to withdraw their ecclesiastical students from abroad. Then it became the policy, as it was manifestly the true interest of England, that the Catholic priesthood of Ireland should be educated at home. In 1793, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the Protestant university of Dublin was opened to the Roman Catholics. That statement reminded me of the story of the opening of the oyster, the whole of whose inside was retained by the person who opened it, while he generously presented the real owners with the empty shells. Just in the same manner was the oyster of Trinity College opened; for while the Catholics were allowed to contribute their quota to increase the revenues of the college, they were not permitted to participate in any of the emoluments or profits of that university. I have been, Sir, merely laying before the House a few facts, not by way of threat or intimidation, but in order to supply some useful information, which may induce this country to turn over a new leaf in regard to the Catholics of Ireland; that now the people of this great empire, being powerful and at peace, may act a generous part towards my Catholic countrymen, and not allow them to be continually subjected to the insulting fanaticism of some interested parties in this country. In the same year, 1793, occurred in Ireland what is called "the little rebellion"—a sort of Ballingarry affair; and this also helped, perhaps, to open the Dublin oyster. The next matter to which I would refer the House, I extract from "Lord Castlereagh's Memoirs," and I would beg the particular attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the statement. In the year 1794, the Irish Catholic students being driven out of France, and being no longer able to receive their education there, the Catholic bishops of Ireland, anxious to avoid the contamination of foreign principles, wished that those who were to be brought up as clerical students should receive their education in Ireland. Accordingly, the Catholic hierarchy, in a body, presented a memorial to the Government of the day, which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House. The memorial is signed by Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, on behalf of himself and his fellow-bishops, and it states that—

"Memorialists were formerly obliged to resort to foreign countries for education, especially to France, where they had procured many valuable institutions. Four hundred students were constantly maintained and educated therein for the ministry of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland. But in the anarchy which affects that kingdom, these establishments had been necessarily destroyed; and even though lawful authority should be restored, the loss would be irreparable, for as the profligate principles of rebellion and Atheism may not be speedily effaced, memorialists would not expose their youth to the contagion of sedition and immorality, nor their country to the danger of thus introducing the pernicious principles of a licentious philosophy. Although the mode of education practised in the University of Dublin may be well adapted to form men for the various departments of public business, yet it is not alike applicable to the ecclesiastics of a very ritual religion, and not by any means calculated to impress on the mind habits of austere discipline so indispensable to the character of a Roman Catholic clergyman."

But it is to the concluding prayer of this memorial that I would especially call the attention of the House:—

"They humbly beg a royal license for the endowment of academies or seminaries for educating and preparing young persons to discharge the duties of the Roman Catholic clergymen in this kingdom under ecclesiastical superiors of their own communion."

Being thus asked by the Catholic prelates of Ireland, not for any Government endowment, but merely for permission to establish Roman Catholic colleges out of their own funds, what did the English Govern- ment do? Why, as the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel said in 1845, the whole Continent being convulsed, England struggling almost for her very existence, the English Government did not merely permit the establishment of a Catholic college, but, of their own accord, they undertook to endow it. Here, then, were the circumstances, under which that endowment was first made. Let me quote in proof of these statements, the speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in 1845:—

"In 1795" that great and lamented statesman said, "the reigning sovereign was George III. The Minister of England was Mr. Pitt; the Secretary of State was the Duke of Portland, afterwards Chancellor of the University of Oxford. That was a critical period the year 1795. In a speech made to the Irish Parliament at the opening of the Session, the Lord Lieutenant said—' We are engaged in no ordinary contest. The time calls for great fortitude. You are engaged with a Power which was always highly formidable to the neighbouring nations. Lately this Power has assumed a new shape. To guard his people from the enterprises of this dangerous Power, His Majesty has availed himself of every rational aid, foreign and domestic. He has called upon the skill, courage, and experience of his people, wheresoever dispersed.' In that same speech, made at this most eventful epoch, the Lord Lieutenant said—'It is hoped that your wisdom will order everything in the manner most beneficial and best adapted to the occasions of the several descriptions of men which compose His Majesty's faithful subjects in Ireland.'"—[See 3 Hansard, lxxix. 26.]

In this remarkable speech of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, no suspicion whatever was suggested of the disloyalty of any class of the Irish people—-nor indeed do we ever hear any such allusion in times of peril to the empire. What, Sir, was the result of that speech? Why, the Roman Catholics of Ireland received a Government endowment of 8,000l. a year to found the College of Maynooth, although they had never asked for it in any form. They, on the contrary, wanted to carry out the voluntary principle, but it was thought more politic and better for the safety of the State that their college should be endowed with public money. During the Session of 1795 the first Act endowing the College of Maynooth was passed, without any opposition or even discussion. It was admitted by all to be a wise and politic measure. This Act of 35 Geo. III., c. 21, was passed on the 5th of June, 1795, being the last day of the Session. On the same day, upon proroguing the Irish Parliament, the Lord Lieutenant said, that "a wise foundation had been laid for educating at home the Ro- man Catholic clergy." Sir, in alluding to the circumstances under which this grant was originally made, the highest military authority of the age, in a speech made by him in 1845, thus corroborates the statements of Sir Robert Peel:—

"At that period of 1795,"says the Duke of Wellington, "the French Republic had already commenced. The arms of that republic had already conquered the Low Countries on the left-hand side of the Rhine, had overcome parts of Germany and Italy, and were established on the frontiers of the Pyrenees."

Sir, I defy any one who may follow me in the debate to prove that I have not correctly stated the true origin of the Maynooth endowment. I have taken my proofs from unquestionable authorities—from Parliamentary documents. Hon. Gentlemen, then, will please to recollect that Maynooth was endowed in 1795, when George III. was King, Mr. Pitt Prime Minister, and Lord Camden Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and it received, also at the same time, the full approbation of other great authorities, such as Charles James Fox, and Edmund Burke. And now, I will endeavour shortly to point out how this grant must be considered in the nature of a compact. By making the grant originally, you dried up all sources of revenue which might be naturally expected from the Catholic population of Ireland, who may, therefore, now fairly say—"You have for upwards of fifty years continued to support the College of Maynooth by public grants. By doing so you have effectually stopped all these sources of private benevolence from which the wants of that institution would otherwise have been supplied. Is it just or fair to turn round now upon the Catholic people of Ireland, and deprive them of this miserable grant?" I, Sir, can conceive nothing more clearly unjust—nothing, I should say, more monstrous than such conduct. By endowing Maynooth you also effectually prevented the Irish Catholics from recovering any of those foreign endowments which they had possessed before the breaking out of the French Revolution, and which had been offered to be restored to them by France. To illustrate this view of the case, I would mention that the Catholic clergy of Ireland have long been supported upon the voluntary principle by customary donations from their flocks. They have never yet asked for any State provision, but, on the contrary, have often objected to such a mode of endowment. Now, if the British Government, for its own interests, and as a matter of mere State policy, were to take upon itself to endow the Catholic clergy of Ireland, and thus supersede, and put an end to, the existing custom of voluntary endowment, would it be at all just or defensible, after a lapse of more than fifty years, to withdraw such State provision, and turn the clergy adrift upon the voluntary system, which would no longer exist? In 1798 the Irish rebellion broke out, and forthwith the President of the College of Maynooth put an oath to every student within its walls that they were in no way connected with any of the societies of United Irishmen of that day. And, Sir, Lord Castlereagh's memoirs contain a just tribute to the loyalty of all inmates of the College of Maynooth during the year 1798, and state that "the president, masters, and others of the seminary, exerted themselves in repressing the late wicked rebellion, and that the captain and other officers in the Duke of York's regiment witnessed and commended their loyal exertions." The same memoirs give an extract from the journal of the Visitors, of their proceedings at Maynooth on the 11th of May, 1798, which states that—

"They (the Visitors) cannot dissemble their painful feelings on observing their principles and conduct daily misrepresented in the public prints. They consider the indiscriminate censure and abuse of the Roman Catholic body as unseasonable and impolitic, as it is certainly unjust and unwarranted; and they apprehend that the disaffected of all religious persuasions will avail themselves of it to foster a spirit of discontent, distrust, and irritation amongst the ignorant, the credulous, and the needy. To deceive them is the constant object of all leading agitators, who use every means to excite jealousies, and cherish them for their own selfish and seditious purposes."

In these days, also, the leading agitators of all classes in the three kingdoms will use the same topics to excite jealousies, and promote their own selfish and individual ends. For myself, Sir, I have never been in the habit of discussing these exciting and agitating questions outside the doors of this House, which is, I believe, the proper place to advance them boldly and frankly, in order that the people of England may no longer misunderstand the nature of things in Ireland. In this House, Sir, resides the power of doing much good or great evil, and, therefore, the floor of this House is the fittest place for such discussions to be maintained. In the year 1800, at the time of the Union, the whole affairs of the College of Maynooth were fully inquired into; and on that occasion Lord Castlereagh received much important information from Dr. O'Bierne, the Protestant Bishop of Meath, who was a most intelligent person, and who, having been once a Catholic himself, was perfectly acquainted with all the bearings of the matter. In his letter to Lord Castlereagh, that prelate deprecates "violating in a moment of passion and prejudice the faith of Government, and the implied pledge of Parliament. He adds—

"You must make provision for the full establishment of 400, which was what the E. C. Bishops calculated as necessary to keep up the parish priests and their coadjutors. British subjects, educated in foreign institutions, whether in Italy, Spain, or Portugal, where they still abound, may, and most probably will, imbibe all the prejudices of their worst days, and propagate them. A door will therefore be still left open to admit Popish priests of the old description amongst us. They will, of course, be the most devoted to the See of Rome, and, being its greatest favourites, will have the greatest weight, and thus you will have a distinction between Government priests, and the Catholic priests, from which the most disastrous consequences must flow to the country. I would consider it a most unwise measure, to suffer the education of the Roman Catholic clergy to return to the old course, from which so much mischief has flowed to the empire. On that event they must either go for education to countries hostile to England, where, in addition to their religious prejudices, they would imbibe those civil prejudices, and that spirit of hatred and resentment, of which France and Spain have uniformly availed themselves, ever since the Reformation, to raise a party for themselves, and excite domestic disturbances in Ireland, or they will be left to pick up such an education as they can at home amidst poverty and ignorance. So far from it being a wise measure to diminish the number of students to be provided at Maynooth, the number necessary for the supply of the parochial clergy should be maintained to its fullest extent.

That advice thus given by the Protestant Bishop of Meath, in 1800, was acted on by Sir Robert Peel in 1845, supported by every eminent statesmen of that day, and among others, the Duke of Wellington, who stated on that occasion, that, "No Minister has ever been found who has proposed, or who would ever think of proposing, to stop the Maynooth grant." We hear a great deal about these old Continental priests of the Catholic Church; about their superior manner, and the comparative loyality of their views; but it appears pretty plainly from these statements of the Protestant Bishop of Meath that it was very wisely considered the true interest of England to continue the College of Maynooth, where the Catholic clergymen of Ireland at present receive their domestic education. And again, we are very much in the habit of hearing imputations cast upon the ignorance and want of refinement of the Irish priesthood. Allow me, however, Sir, to observe, that there never yet were uttered more atrocious and unfounded calumnies against any body of gentlemen, arising, no doubt, from utter ignorance of the true character of those who are thus so wantonly maligned. And if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire will only put an end to this absurd debate, and come over with me this very evening to Ireland, I will promise to introduce him there to a body of gentlemen as highly educated, in every sense, as any to be found within the pale of his own Church. I know something of the clergy of both religions; I have many near relatives in the Catholic priesthood, and some near connexions among the Protestant clergy, for all of whom I entertain the most kindly feelings. I know how the clergy of both churches are educated, having passed some years in Catholic colleges, and also in the Protestant universities of both countries, and I will not shrink from any comparison that may be instituted between the general attainments of the Catholic as compared to the Protestant clergy. Nay, more, I think if the hon. Gentleman will accede to my proposal, and come over with me to Ireland, he will soon be able to satisfy himself that the Catholic priesthood are infinitely better theologically educated than the clergymen of the Church of England. ["Divide, divide!"] I think it is not very generous in hon. Gentlemen opposite towards a small minority to refuse to hear our observations in reply to the vituperations which have been heaped upon our clergy and our religion. Now the Protestant Bishop of Meath, in his letter to Lord Castlereagh, deprecates above all things the withdrawal of the grant from May-nooth, and maintains that it was based upon the implied pledge and good faith of Parliament. "I should consider it most unwise," said he, "to suffer the education of the Roman Catholic clergy to return to the old course, from which so much mischief has flowed to the empire." That was the advice of the Bishop of Meath, who perfectly understood what he was writing about. Well, in the same year in which that Bishop wrote his opinions, the second Maynooth Act, 40 Geo. III., c. 85, was passed, which made some alteration in the constitution of the visitors, who were again altered in 1845, in order, as Sir Robert Peel then said, that there might be "a bond fide visitation." And let me hero advert to an argument which has been sometimes used by those who have wished to abolish this grant, namely, that by the Act of Union it was stipulated that certain Irish charities should be continued for a period of twenty years; and therefore, that Parliament had entered into a compact to continue the Maynooth grant up to 1820, but not beyond that period. I deny, however, that there is anything whatever in that argument, for the Maynooth grant was never understood as included among those charities. This appears very clear from the circumstance that in the years 1801 and 1802, a reduction was actually made from that grant. I will now mention another important circumstance, in order to establish beyond all question, that there exists a clear and distinct compact binding on this country, to maintain this grant. For we find that in the year 1806-7, the French armies having prevailed in Spain and Portugal, the Irish ecclesiastical students were driven out of Lisbon, and lost all their bourses there, as they had in 1793 been deprived of all their endowments in France. That having been clone, what next occurred? Why, the French Executive, by order of Napoleon, made a distinct offer to the Catholic bishops of Ireland to restore all the French and foreign endowments if they would only send their ecclesiastical students to be educated in France. It appears from the Parliamentary records of 1808, that this offer was distinctly made by Napoleon to the Catholics of Ireland. It is referred to upon two occasions in the presence of the Duke of Wellington, then Sir Arthur Wellesley, and Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the debate of April 29th, 1808, Sir J. Newport stated, that, "The students at Lisbon had been lately invited to Paris, whereupon the Roman Catholic hierarchy expressed their determination to exclude any such from the Irish priesthood." On the 5th of May, 1808, General Montague Mathew, a brother to the Earl of Llandaff, urged upon Sir Arthur Wellesley and Mr. Perceval's Government the offer made by order of Bonaparte to induce Irish students to go for their education to France from Lisbon and Ireland, upon a promise of a restoration of all the Irish bourses; and he then read an extract from the answer of the Irish Catholic bishops, "expressing their gratitude to the British Government for their support of Maynooth, and denouncing suspension against any functionaries, and exclusion from preferment in Ireland against any students, who should accept the offer of the enemy of their country." So here you have the French taking away the Irish Catholic endowments in France and at Lishon, and afterwards offering to restore them all upon the single condition, that Irishmen intended for the priesthood should receive their education at Paris, and you have that offer indignantly denounced by all the Irish prelates of the Catholic Church. I think all Members of this House will concur with me in considering that in making this offer, Napoleon was actuated by no good or benevolent motive towards the people of Ireland, but was acting upon the principle lately announced by the Prime Minister, when he stated that "he considered the question of the endowment of Maynooth was one purely of policy, as to which his Government must be free to act without reference to any specific principle of right or wrong." No doubt the objects and pure policy of Napoleon were to provide himself with a means for endeavouring to sow disaffection towards England in the minds of the future pastors and instructors of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland. Am I not fully justified, therefore, in my statement, that this grant is based upon a clear and distinct compact between the Government of this country and the Catholics of Ireland; and that it is impossible to withdraw it without at least giving full compensation to the Roman Catholics who in former years were deprived of all their foreign endowments, and who since that time have ceased to create any new endowments, relying upon the faith of this Parliamentary grant? Sir, several days have been lately consumed here in discussing a Militia Bill, which was yesterday carried through this House; and I would respectfully suggest for the consideration of English Members whether by withdrawing at once this irritating discussion, doubling this paltry grant to Maynooth, and enacting some useful measures for relieving the people of Ireland. they would not be adding more to the true defences of the country than by enacting fifty of their trumpery Militia Bills? Were I an English Protestant Member, I would, perhaps, suggest the possibility that a new Napoleon might soon arise, who would be anxious to act again upon the same "pure policy" principle, and to repeat the offer made by the great Napoleon in 1807. But, Sir, what was the consequence of Napoleon's offer, and of the loyal course taken by the Irish prelates in regard to it? Why, in the year 1807, the grant was raised from 8,000l. to 13,000l. a year. In the very next year the matter was again brought forward, and though the Prime Minister, Mr. Perceval, and Sir Arthur Wellesley, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, resisted so large an increase as 13,000l. a year, they stated to the House that they did so solely on the ground that they considered a smaller increase would suffice to supply the existing exigencies of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. What did the same Sir Arthur Wellesley, when Duke of Wellington, afterwards say, during the debate of 1845, when advocating the increase to 26,000l. a year? He then stated—

"There can be no doubt of the absolute necessity of finding some means for educating Roman Catholic priests for the service of the Roman Catholic mission in Ireland. It was stated at the time this institution was founded, that the population of Ireland was 3,000,000. It had advanced, in 1841, to 8,175,000, and probably it is now 8,500,000, and of that number, about seven-eighths are to be considered as Roman Catholics."

Here let me own that I have heard a great deal said during this debate about what they called Ultramontanism. Now, without intending the slightest offence to any hon. Gentleman, I must be permitted to remark that I really do not believe that one out of fifty of those persons who are perpetually talking about this horrid bugbear of Ultramontanism, know what that word means. Perhaps the best explanation of it would be that it is the Latin version of Ducdame, which they all knew is "a Greek invocation to call fools into a circle." The other day I happened to meet a very distinguished Protestant gentleman, who, in the course of our conversation, lamented the spread of Ultramontanism. Upon my asking him whether he was certain he knew the meaning of the word, he said he understood it perfectly, for he knew it meant "beyond the mountain." So, according to this explanation, every one living on the other side of the Alps is an Ultramontanist; but all of us English and Irish who dwell on this side of the Alps must be considered as good his-Alpinists. In this view of the matter, it certainly surprises me that amongst the numerous nicknames by which some ultra-Protestants have delighted to call his Holiness the Pope, it has never yet occurred to them that instead of calling him the "Man of Sin," he should rather be called the "Man of the Mountain." Now I beg to state that, possessing as I do every opportunity for forming a correct opinion, I do not believe that any sort of Ultramontanism exists in Ireland; most certainly none in the College of Maynooth; which, ever since its foundation, has been essentially cis-Alpine and even Gallican in its doctrines; as was plainly shown upon the inquiry held before the Irish Education Commissioners in 1826. Well, if hon. Gentlemen opposite really believed that there is any of this dreadful Ultramontism in Ireland, surely it would he a most extraordinary course on their part to endeavour to destroy that establishment, which admittedly has always inculcated the very opposite doctrines. I shall, however, postpone for the present to discuss the speculative questions of Ultramontanism, which are really of no practical importance whatever, and shall proceed with my chronological statement respecting the College of Maynooth. In the year 1815 Napoleon was finally expelled, and the Bourbons restored to the French throne: upon that occasion full restitution was made for all the property of which British subjects had been deprived during the disastrous period of the French revolution, except only the ecclesiastical endowments for the Catholics of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] But, Sir, though Maynooth is essentially Gallican, and always has been so, this is not the first time that there has been raised against it a most false and unjust outcry. A similar course was taken to cry down this college shortly before the inquiry held in 1826 by the Education Commissioners, of whom four were Protestants, and only one Roman Catholic. Upon that occasion everything connected with the doctrines and management of Maynooth were investigated in the most searching and even offensive form. The president, the professors, and several students of the college were examined, as well as some gentlemen educated there who had afterwards changed their religion, and became clergymen of the Protestant Church. The report of these Commissioners is dated the 2nd of June, 1827. Upon referring to the evidence given by the Very Rev. Dr. Crotty, who had been president of Maynooth from 1813, we find him thus complaining of the unjust vituperations that had been recently poured upon that institution:—

"In a public newspaper which was supposed to be the organ of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland, including many of the clergy, it was roundly asserted that the Catholic clergy of Ireland were composed of men trained up in the College of Maynooth in principles of treason and sedition. I said nothing, however, on the subject until those charges were repeated, perhaps a year after in the Courier, and avowedly on the strength of documents sent to the editor of that paper from Ireland. I then thought it necessary to interfere in defence of the establishment to which I belong; but instead of doing the thing in so public a way as might cause unpleasant discussions, I applied to his Excellency the Marquess of Wellesley, and requested of him as a particular favour, that he would order an extraordinary visitation of the College, or, if he thought it more convenient, send down the Commissioners of Education Inquiry to examine as minutely as they pleased into the state of the college. His Excellency told me that he conceived there was no necessity for either course, as the visitation by the Chancellor and Judges was to take place in three or four months. When the visitation did come on, I stated to the Chancellor and to the other Judges the nature of those charges, and begged of them either to continue the visitation in order to satisfy themselves of the falsehood of these charges, or, if it would be more convenient to them, to hold an adjourned visitation. The Lord Chancellor said he would consider it his duty to do so if he thought there was any ground for the charges brought against the college; but as he was perfectly satisfied they had no foundation whatever in truth, he did not think such a proceeding necessary. He afterwards told me, in the presence of Chief Baron O'Grady, that he had himself seen the words to which I alluded, and that he considered them a shameful and most unjustifiable charge made against the college."

It being Four of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair.

resumed the Chair at Six o'clock.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there was any truth in the report that a picture, said to be by Titian, which was recently purchased for the National Gallery at Marshal Soult's sale, for 2,400l, was last year in the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to several of the trustees, who might then have purchased it for 1,200l.? He might say that he had learnt the above facts from the gentleman in whose possession the picture was last year.

Sir, there is no truth whatever in the report that a picture in the possession of a London dealer, said to be by Titian, was shown to the trustees of the National Gallery, and offered to them for 12,000l., the same having been subsequently purchased by the Trustees of the National Gallery for 2,400l. It is quite true that the picture, which I believe is undoubtedly by Titian, and which has recently been purchased by the trustees of the National Gallery, was in London about a year ago, because it was seen by friends of my own. I am not aware, from the information that has come to me, that that picture was ever offered for the sum of 1,200l.; but, in answering the question, I am prepared to remind the House, that nothing is more delusive than to form precipitate conclusions as to the value of works of Titian by the sum asked by private persons previously to a public sale. Now, in the case of that celebrated picture by Murillo, which has recently been sold for perhaps the largest amount that any picture has yet realised—a sum equal to nearly 24,000l.—that picture was offered to a distinguished individual, well known in this House, and once a Member, only a few years ago, for the sum of 8,000l. Now, with regard to the picture referred to by the hon. Gentleman, it is true that the trustees of the National Gallery have purchased it for 2,400l. It is a picture which has been in this metropolis recently—I may say certainly within the last twelve months. There are very few pictures of eminence first exhibited at Paris which do not form the experimental trip to London. It is probable that this picture may have been offered to some individual at a less sum than that for which the country has given for it. It is possible that it may have been offered for 1,200l.; but it was never offered for any such sum either to the Treasury or to the Trustees of the National Gallery. The country has given 2,400l. for it, and I believe that we have purchased a very valuable picture at a moderate price.

begged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case of Private Bills being prevented from passing the House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament, any steps will be taken to facilitate their being passed in the next Parliament, so that the great expense incurred in respect to them, up to their present stages, may not be thrown away?

was sure the hon. Baronet must, on reflection, feel that it was not in the power of the present Parliament to take any steps to facilitate the progress of Private Bills in the next Parliament. That indulgence it would be in the power of the next Parliament to afford, and he believed that in 1831 that indulgence was afforded by the new Parliament. But the hon. Baronet must feel that there must be circumstances of grave and pressing necessity to justify the new Parliament in taking that course. The new Parliament would decide on the question of the existence of such a necessity as would call on them to come to such a decision. He must remind the hon. Baronet that no resolution of the present House would be binding on its successor.

begged to put a question to the right hon. President of the Board of Trade with respect to the oyster fisheries. By the convention with France, both English and French fishermen were prohibited dredging for oysters in the months of May, June, July, and August, but the terms of the convention had been modified so as to allow London to be supplied with oysters in August. The fishermen of both countries had of late been fishing, not on the coast, but in mid-channel, for oysters which were in good condition in the prohibited months. As a memorial had been presented to the Board of Trade on the subject, and the subsistence of the families of some very industrious men on the coast of Kent and Sussex was involved, he wished to ask if the Government had considered the matter with a view to modify the law in concurrence with France, so as to allow them to dredge for deep-sea oysters in May and June which were in excellent condition; and also if the right hon. Gentleman would lay copies of the memorial and the correspondence on the subject on the table of the House, as on a former occason he had stated that he would do?

said, the question was One of importance to a great number of fishermen; for the law, which was intended to prevent poaching on oyster beds, was so severe, that it prevented their catching a particular kind of oyster, which many persons would be glad to eat in the close season. Now there was a penalty against having dredges in the boats, but there was no penalty for having the oysters in their boats, or, on their landing, selling or eating them. The memorial praying for a relaxation of the law had occupied his attention, and he would consider the subject, and if he could see any way, in concurrence with France, of relaxing the law, so as to enable the fishermen to fish in the deep sea, without endangering the operation of the law against poaching in the close season, he wished to do so. He would shortly lay the papers referred to on the table.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for "a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome." The hon. Gentleman said, that in asking the House to resume that discussion, which might be said to have been adjourned on the 20th of April, he thought it would be proper that he should, as shortly as possible, recall to the attention of the House the condition in which the question was then left, that they might know the situation in which they now stood when they invited them to resume it. On that occasion he made a Motion in that House that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to inquire whether due respect had been paid to the decrees, canons, and constitutions ecclesiastical of the Church of England in the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome. Now the object and aim of that Motion could not be misunderstood. It was aimed at the act of institution, an act for which the Bishop of Bath and Wells solely was responsible—an allegation having been made to the Bishop that the presentee was an unfit person to he instituted, and the Bishop having proceeded to institute him in spite of that allegation and the evidence adduced in support of it. From the terms of the Motion there was no doubt of its intent. From the manner in which it was received and debated by the House, still less was there doubt about its object and meaning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, moved the Amendment to the Motion that he proposed, and the right hon. Gentleman showed that he had not misunderstood the object of his (Mr. Horsman's) Motion. The ground on which the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to that Motion was based, was twofold. First he stated that the mode in which he (Mr. Horsman) proposed to pro- ceed to gain redress for the complainants, was inadequate. But in the next place he stated very explicitly, and more than once, that one chief ground on which he invited the House to reject the Motion was, that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act of the Bishop. In order that he might not in any manner mis-state what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion, he would quote his exact words. He said—

"I have always understood, and I cannot help believing, that there must be an appeal from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of the Church to the Archbishop. If there be an appeal to the Archbishop, if the conduct and decision of the prelate is subject to that superior revision, that surely must be a reason why the House of Commons should not interfere before that appeal has taken place."—[3 Hansard, cxx. 918.]

Now that showed that the right hon. Gentleman saw, felt, and admitted that the Motion was directed against the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and did not merely touch the conduct which had been alleged against the Rev. Mr. Bennett. Well, the House was not satisfied with the ground which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took on that occasion; and various Members on both sides of the House expressed their belief that the question ought not to be so disposed of; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), whom he saw opposite. speaking the sentiments of many of his Friends on that side of the House, stated very clearly what he (Mr. Horsman) thought was the sentiment of the House. These were the hon. Member's words:—

"He was quite certain that, this question having been raised, the country would demand that it should be fully investigated. It was a question that, having been raised, must be dealt with; and although he should wish to leave it in the hands of the Government to decide how the investigation should be made, so that they, in the proper and due exercise of the privilege vested in them of advising Her Majesty, should indicate the proper course to be taken in the matter, he yet begged them not to imagine that the question could be passed over without satisfying the public by a full inquiry.—[Ibid., 925.]

He (Mr. Horsman) therefore repeated, that it was shown at that time, by the general feeling of the House, and it was notorious from what had since passed, that the hon. Member expressed not only his own sentiments, but the sentiments of many Gentlemen who sat around him. The House therefore, being dissatisfied, another Member of the Cabinet immediately arose—the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. That right hon. Baronet's language was equally strong and equally difficult to mistake. The right hon. Gentleman cordially—

"Assented to the proposition which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that this question having been raised it ought to be dealt with. He felt not only that this was a question which ought to be raised, but that, having been raised, it ought to be dealt with; and he would say for himself, as well as for every other Member of the Government, that this question ought not to be allowed to rest in its present position, but that unquestionably there ought to be an inquiry instituted and a remedy provided.—[Ibid.,925.]

The right hon. Gentleman then went on to show what he felt to he the object of the Motion. He said that the Resolution proposed by him (Mr. Horsman) went solely, as he understood it, to call in question the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells in having instituted Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, and, in fact, without meaning anything offensive in the phrase to him (Mr. Horsman), he must say he regarded it as an attack upon the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The right hon. Gentleman further proceeded to say, that the question of the alleged conduct of Mr. Bennett while at Kisseugen certainly ought to be made the subject of inquiry—that he hoped that what had passed in that House would be the means of causing an inquiry to be made, and that the statements made about the conduct of Mr. Bennett at Kissengen would be fully investigated. So that the right hon. Baronet and other Members of the Cabinet set out by stating not merely that the Motion was directed against the act of institution by the Bishop, but that in addition there should be a full and complete inquiry into the proceedings alleged against Mr. Ben-net during his stay at Kissingen. Such an impression did these statements on the part of two Members of the Government, and especially that on the part of the Colonial Secretary, make on the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), that he stated that he had been relieved from great difficulty by the promise of inquiry made by the Government, and that he declined voting for the hon. Member for Cockermouth's Motion for inquiry. But the noble Lord rested his objection to the Motion on three precise and specific grounds. First, he wished to know whether there was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated, an appeal from the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the Archbishop of Canterbury; next, what was the character of the certificate, or rather of the qualification of the certificate which Mr. Bennett received from the Bishop of London; and, thirdly, he stated that, feeling the propriety and necessity of investigating the subject, he wished, in the first place, to leave it in the hands of the Government: he said he would rather leave it in the hands of the Minister of the Crown to consider what steps they should take; and let them state at some future day if they had found a mode of inquiry that would be satisfactory, and lay before the House the facts they might ascertain. Until that day arrived, the noble Lord said he could not consent to be a party to an address to the Crown. Another Member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, also spoke, and took the same ground in opposing the Motion, and showed that he also understood the Motion to be directed against the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Notwithstanding this, the general feeling of the House was in favour of that inquiry. When he (Mr. Horsman) was appealed to in reply towards the close of the debate, he stated his reasons why he felt it his duty not to accept the qualified promise of an inquiry given by the Government, and why he should press his Motion to a division; and after he sat down, the Chancellor of the Exchequer a second time rose somewhat irregularly in debate, and assured the House that the Government were prepared to institute that inquiry which the House appeared unanimously to desire. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he would not propose a judicial inquiry, as he (Mr. Horsman) had asked him to do—he would not promise a friendly inquiry, as was suggested by his right hon. Colleague; but he could promise that it would be a bond fide inquiry into the circumstances alleged, and that he could not say more. He had stated these facts to the House that they might clearly understand, not merely what was the Motion then made, but what was the manner in which that Motion was received, and, as he might say, disposed of, by the Government. On a subsequent day, after a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House, on the part of the Government, the result of—he would not say the inquiry, but of—the proceeding of the Government on that head. To that announcement he did not wish to refer. He felt that on that occasion it would be extremely inconvenient if they were to embarrass the discussion of the greater question by anything that would be understood to be a criticism, or a censure, or opinion of the past proceedings of the Government. Therefore, to avoid that, a few nights ago, on going into Committee of Supply, he touched upon the law of the case, and in the presence of the Attorney General he put some questions, or rather stated his views by way of question, in order to elicit an assent from that right hon. and learned Gentleman on the law of the case. The Attorney General then supplied what had been defective in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and taking these two statements together, they arrived at this conclusion—that even supposing the sole ground of complaint was against Mr. Bennett, it was very doubtful, under the Church Discipline Act, how far redress could be obtained, owing, first to the limitation in the 20th Clause of the Act restricting its operation to offences committed within the last two years; and in the next place, because no notice could be taken, under the Church Discipline Act, of an offence committed abroad. But, as regarded the Bishop of Bath and Wells, it would be admitted by every lawyer in that House that there was no redress whatever provided by law against his institution of Mr. Bennett—there was no statute under which, and no court in which, that institution could be challenged. The right hon. and learned Attorney General rather imagined on that occasion that he (Mr. Horsman) in his statement meant to cast censure on the manner in which the Government had fallen short of their duty in the promised investigation; while an hon. Baronet on the same occasion said, that he (Mr. Horsman) had acquitted them of all blame. Now he (Mr. Horsman) had done neither the one or the other; for his desire and determination on that occasion were to avoid the expresssion of any opinion whatever—he had not thought that at that moment he was in a condition to express one; but he would take the discussion this evening as the sequel of that of the preceding night, and judge of the proceedings of the Ministers by what would occur this evening. If he found that having stated that this question ought to be investigated—that it was a grave question, and could not rest where it was—they were now prepared to act up to that opinion, he should be satisfied, as he believed the public would also be. But if he found that they endeavoured to make this a party question, and brought the influence of the Government to bear upon his Motion to defeat it, then he should arrive at a different opinion; and he believed the country also would arrive at a different opinion, and would express it. He had said thus much, to put the House in possession of the facts of the case. He had referred to what had been said by different Members of the Government. He would make no further allusion to the report that had been given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he wished to discuss the question without any admixture of party feeling. He had formerly stated so fully the facts relating to Mr. Bennett, that he should not have thought it necessary to go further into them now; but a question had been raised in that House by the friends of Mr. Bennett as to the accuracy of the narrative that he had given; and something he had said had been misunderstood by the noble Lord the Member for Down, who seemed to think that he had asserted that Mr. Bennett was no longer in communion with the Church of England, and was in communion with the Church of Rome. Now, he made no such statement. He said, indeed, that when Mr. Bennett left the diocese of London he went abroad, and he was understood to have gone to Rome in more senses than one. What he meant by that statement was no more than what might be inferred from the rev. gentleman's own writings. In his letter, written to the Bishop of London when he resigned his benefice, Mr. Bennett said, "that the end must be ere long that he must give up the conflict, and seek peace elsewhere." Now he believed no person who read that passage would put on it any other interpretation than that by "elsewhere" Mr. Bennett meant the Church of Rome. "Seek peace elsewhere" was not a term to be misunderstood; it was one with which they were very familiar; it was the stereotyped phrase of those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where he supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and was the usual expression of clergymen of the Church of England who contemplated that change. ["No, no!"] He could quote it from several of her clergy who had gone over to Rome, and to take only two instances which occurred to him at the moment, he could quote it from Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Manning. He, therefore, thought himself justified in putting upon those words the interpretation—that Mr. Bennett did feel that he was not in his right place in the Church of England, and did feel at the same time a disposition at any rate to join the Church of Rome. He had said something of the rev. gentleman's proceedings at Kissengen, and it had been represented that his whole statement was founded on the evidence of one party there. He owned that, if at the time when he spoke, he had believed that the inquiry he asked would not have been fully gone into, he should have felt it would place the gentleman upon whose authority he spoke in a very awkward position to quote him there. But he could assure the House that there was nothing to disapprove in the spirit which had actuated that gentleman. To show this he would read to the House the sequel of his letter, which would show how different his spirit had, in fact, been from that which, in some quarters, had been imputed to him. He thought it his duty to read portions of the gentleman's correspondence to show that he was not either an anxious or a willing witness against Mr. Bennett, but had done what any Member of the House might have done—mentioned to a friend what occurred at Kissengen. That friend (as it turned out very much to his annoyance) made his statement public. He could not then draw back, but when asked whether his original statement was true, took the part a man would take under such circumstances. He said—

"It is painful to me to be brought forward as a witness in this case, but as the facts were undoubtedly stated by me, though not for publication, I do feel bound in honour to confirm what I have said; and though my letters were not intended to be published, I am still prepared to come forward and substantiate every word I said."

Shortly after the speech which he (Mr. Horsman) had delivered, the gentleman, Mr. Stutzen, wrote a further letter, which would best show what his feelings were, and in which there was the following passage:—

"It seems to me that the simplest course, if he denies what I have stated to be true, will be to send to Kissengen, where conclusive evidence can easily be obtained. There must be fifty persons at least who can say if they have seen or have not seen him at mass. I have stated the evidence I can give. I have been dragged into the matter by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt, and being in it I am bound to substantiate every syllable, and am willing to pay the whole expenses of any person who can go over to Kissengen, where the question can be easily decided of the attendance of Mr. Bennett at the Roman Catholic Service, and his non-attendance at the Church of England service. If he did not attend the Roman Catholic service, of course the question is at rest. Sir J. Harrington was with him, and could scarcely refuse, when solemnly questioned, to give his testimony, however unfavourable it might be in its consequences to Mr. Bennett."

He (Mr. Horsman) had read this to show that the writer of the letter was evidently an unwilling witness; but finding that his statements had been published—though he was no party to their publication—as a man of spirit and character he felt himself bound not to shrink from the confirmation of that which he had stated. These letters had been written without any idea of publication, and when the writer was asked to allow them to be published, he had felt a reluctance to be placed in so painful a position, and did not wish his testimony to be used unless supported by other evidence. This much he (Mr. Horsman) had stated, because he felt it due to a gentleman whom he had placed in his present position against his wish; but it must be known he had other testimony which he could have adduced, and which, moreover, he would have adduced if he had not believed that an inquiry would have been granted, and that at this inquiry the evidence of which he spoke would have been taken. He could have stated what he had seen in the handwriting of a lady who was at Kissengen last year, that the organist of the church there had pointed our Mr. Bennett as a clergyman who had been recently received from the Church of England into the Church of Rome; he could have stated what he should not have mentioned till this moment if it had not been referred to—that Mr. Bennett's proceedings and conduct at Kissengen were so notorious, that in the Roman Catholic Directory for 1851 his name was inserted as having been received into the Roman Catholic Church. He had not mentioned this, because, in the first place, he could not state that that Roman Catholic Directory, though of very large circulation, was a work of authority. But the House must remember that last year it was stated by Dr. Wiseman, that the English Government ought to have been quite aware of the Pope's intention to create him Archbishop of Westminster, because it had been published in Battersby's Directory the year before. But passing on, he had in his hand a certificate from a German servant at Kissengen, who said it was matter of notoriety to all the servants at his hotel, that Mr. Bennett went to mass every mor- ning. He could have stated, too—and as the investigation for which he called had not taken place he felt justified in now stating—that Mr. Bennett, when travelling abroad last time with his party, carried about with him wherever he went a consecrated stone, for an altar; that this stone was set up when they halted; and that Mr. Bennett officiated as priest and performed religious service before it. Now it was known in the Roman Catholic Church that every priest must carry about with him a small consecrated stone or altar to be used where otherwise he could not perform mass. It was the custom of the Roman Catholic Church; but there was nothing analogous to it in the English Church. Whilst Mr. Bennett was abroad, this consecrated stone was carried about with him; it was before this altar that Mr. Bennett's party assembled to worship. He would now state to the House why that evidence, which he bad adduced on the authority of Mr. Pratt, of Mr. Bennett's proceedings at Kissengen was the most fit and legitimate evidence that could be given. When a Member made a statement in that House, and especially in challenging the public acts of official persons not there present, it was an obligation which they would all acknowledge—and which he, when he had trespassed upon the House in connexion with ecclesiastical inquiries had especially regarded—to be careful as to the character of the evidence they adduced, and to bring forward none that could be held unfair to the party, as unknown to him. During the last four or five years, and in all the Motions which he had made respecting ecclesiastical functionaries and dignitaries, the evidence on which those Motions were based had been published evidence—with which all the world was acquainted, and which generally had been taken from returns and reports laid upon the table of the House. In the case of Mr. Bennett he had thought two points essential: first, that the evidence he alluded to should be that of parties prepared to come forward and substantiate it in public; and, next, that it should be evidence already known to Mr. Bennett, and which could not take him by surprise. So in this case, setting aside the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a strong fact that the conversion to Romanism of Mr. Bennett should have been published in Battersby's Directory so long, and yet remained uncontradicted till April, when he (Mr. Horsman) spoke upon this subject. He thought it extraordinary, too, that the charges contained in Mr. Pratt's letter should have remained unanswered. Perhaps it would be said Mr. Bennett had seen neither one nor the other. But the fact was he had evidence that that letter had met Mr. Bennett's eye. Before the institution of that gentleman it would be remembered that there was a good deal of excitement at Frome; and when the institution took place, Mr. Hastings, a clergyman in the neighbourhood of Frome addressed the following letter to Mr. Bennett:—

"Rectory, Trowbridge, Jan. 31, 1852,

"Rev. Sir—The enclosed letter [this was the letter of Mr. Pratt] I have copied from the Achil Missionary Herald of this month. You may not have the opportunity of seeing the paper, and, consequently, be unable to reply to it. As a brother clergyman and a near neighbour, I have felt it to be my duty to make you acquainted with the serious charge brought publicly against you, and the scandal occasioned thereby to the Church; may I hope you will not think me officious or obtrusive in calling your attention to the subject? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in the statement, I am, Reverend Sir, yours faith fully, "J. D. HASTINGS.

"Rev. W. Bennett."

That letter had been addressed to Mr. Bennett in a kind spirit; and even if he had been a gentleman regarding whose previous orthodoxy there had been no doubt, but of whom there had been injurious reports while he was abroad, he would naturally-—it would be thought—be grateful for the opportunity it gave of contradicting those reports; and certainly Mr. Bennett, with his antecedents, ought to have felt himself bound to answer it. Mr. Bennett had been charged with unfaithfulness; yet that letter met with no reply. On Feb. 12, Mr. Hastings wrote again:—

"Rectory, Trowbridge, Feb. 12, 1852.

"Rev. Sir—On Saturday, the 31st of January, I addressed a letter to you, directed Vicarage, Frome.' The object of that communication was to afford you an opportunity of seeing a letter signed 'John 0. N. Pratt,' a copy of which I enclosed, and which has since appeared in several of the English newspapers. This letter was naturally the subject of much conversation among the clergy of the neighbourhood, and I had hoped in writing to you to be enabled, on your authority, to contradict the statements therein contained. Your silence, however, so opposed to that courtesy by which your conduct, as I am informed, is characterised, compels me to conclude that it is not in your power to afford the desired explanation. I regret this the more as it tends to confirm those who were willing to pass over what had occurred in your former parish in the adverse opinion they entertain respecting your appointment to any office in the Church of England, inasmuch as your preference for the services of the Church of Rome, which you have publicly and solemnly declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters of faith, has thrown contempt upon that Church whose faith and doctrine in your ordination vows you promised to give 'faithful diligence always' to minister and teach.—I am, Rev. Sir yours, faithfully, "JOHN D. HASTINGS."

This letter again received no answer. What was the natural conclusion? What conclusion would any man draw from such a silence? Mr. Hastings drew his own. His object was to afford Mr. Bennett an opportunity of denying the charge against him; and the impression left on his mind was that that gentleman could not refute it, and, consequently, had not changed his views. Witness Mr. Hastings' letter to Mr. Wickham:—

Rectory, Trowbridge, April 24, 1852.

"My dear Sir—Enclosed are copies of the letters promised; you are at liberty to make what use you please of them. I may observe my object in writing them was to afford Mr. Bennett an opportunity of contradicting the report of his attendance upon the Romish worship in preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me to call upon him that his views were very much changed. It was the intention of myself and several of the clergy around to have called upon him, had this statement proved true. Just at this time Mr. O. N. Pratt's letter appeared, and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with Mr. Bennett on the subject. I am truly sorry that, by his taking no notice of either letter, he has left an impression on my mind, as I have stated to him, that he could not refute the statement, and, consequently, had not changed his views, thus precluding myself and others from paying him that courtesy which belongs to a brother clergyman coming into the neighbourhood.—I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,

"J. D. HASTINGS."

Then he (Mr. Horsman) said, put aside altogether the letter from the gentleman who resided in the hotel at Kissengen, put aside all the evidence which he (Mr. Horsman) had given the other day as to the conversations of Mr. Bennett, which had been overheard, and here still was the fact, that a letter went the round of all the newspapers, in which it was stated that Mr. Bennett never went near a Protestant church when at KisseDgen; that he was a regular attendant at mass; that upon this a brother clergyman wrote him, in a friendly spirit, a letter which afforded him the opportunity of stating in reply that these assertions were not true; and that that letter was met in the manner described—a manner which left a conviction in the mind of every impartial man that the statements alluded to were true. The clergy, fellow-labourers of Mr. Bennett, were disposed to receive him as a friend, to assist and co-operate with him—they were disposed to extend to him a kind and charitable feeling, which did them credit; all they asked was—"Do enable us to give a satisfactory answer to your parishioners, to our own feelings and consciences; do tell us you did not intentionally and habitually absent yourself from your own church, and attend the Roman Catholic. We will then receive you, spite of all that is past, with friendly and open arms." Was there any one to say that there could be more than one reason why Mr. Bennett should not give the answer he was asked to give? That reason must be, that the statement was true, its contradiction impossible. He (Mr. Horsman) would now ask whether, if he had had the choice of ever so much evidence to bring before the House, he had not selected that which was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evidence which had been made known to Mr. Bennett: it was therefore the fairest to that gentleman, and he thought most satisfactory and conclusive to that House. He came next to a far more important and serious branch of this subject. He had done with Mr. Bennett; he had to speak now of the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The importance of Mr. Bennett's acts were insignificant as compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in station between the minister and the prelate was nothing as compared with the difference of the effects which might follow from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and whose example spread so far beyond himself. On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker which he would take the liberty of quoting. As Hooker said—

"The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far; they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps, by such as dwell at the next door; whereas, men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives are viewed afar off; so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do, the greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God, whom they serve, and to the State wherein they live."

He (Mr. Horsman) felt that he had spoken, when he last addressed the House, under a due sense of all the responsibilities which attached to the task he had undertaken. Some weeks had elapsed since then, and if his statements had been rash and hasty, he had had ample time to reconsider and modify them; while if they had been incorrect, ample opportunity had been afforded for refuting them. After, however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he was bound to say that so far from his having anything to withdraw, the opinions he then gave had in the interim been very much strengthened; and, further, that what he had stated then, fell short of truth, as regarded the Bishop of Bath and Wells, more than it fell short of truth with regard to Mr. Bennett. The Bishop had, in the first place, instituted Mr. Bennett in a manner and with a haste most condemnable, and moreover with a determination to shut out the parishioners of Frome from the legal redress they would have had if they had been given more time. He did it, in the second place, without a certificate from the Bishop of the diocese which Mr. Bennett had left, which by usage and by law he was bound to require; and he did it, in the third place, without the examination enjoined by law, and which the parishioners had a right to demand. He did not even do this hastily, or carelessly, or upon impulse, but advisedly, or as the lawyers said, perversely, and with the intention to defeat the ends of justice. What was the position of the different parties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the vicarage of Frome, and before his institution? Each party then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The parishioners of Frome did not at the time know what their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge later however; but, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop. This was the position of the parties: Before Mr. Bennett was instituted, it was open to the parishioners under the canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution in the Bishop's Court. The object of the caveat was this—that an individual might be presented to a benefice of whom a Bishop might know nothing, and any persons who knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institution, did so by a caveat. If such a course had been taken in this instance, Mr. Bennett would have had to have "warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institution. Then the cause would have been referred by the Bishop to the Chancellor's Courts; from these it might he referred to the Archbishop; and from the Archbishop the cause might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council. That was the position of parties, and that was the right which was available to the parishioners of Frome, while Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before he was instituted. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of that right, and what was the course pursued towards them by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed on Tuesday the 30th of December; on Wednesday he visited Frome; on Thursday, January I, the inhabitants moved, and a protest was got up in a few hours, signed by five clergymen and forty-eight heads of families. On the 2nd this protest was delivered to the Marchioness of Bath, and the day after they received her Ladyship's reply. On Wednesday, the 7th, they memorialised the Bishop, giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement on the 7th of January; on the 15th they received the reply of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating that he should proceed with the institution. On the very same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them fourteen days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to take any further steps in the matter. They received his answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent their solicitor to London to take the opinion of Dr. Twiss. Their solicitor returned on the 23rd, and they then learned, for the first time, the means within their power for delaying institution. They received this opinion on the 23rd, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th; but before that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett. These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character that he (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received letters from two gentlemen of Frome, which he would read to the House. [The hon. Member here read the letters he referred to, one of which was from Mr. Wilson C. Crutt-well, addressed to Mr. J. Hurd; and the other from a gentleman whose name was not given, written in answer to an application from the hon. Member for Cock-ermouth, which repeated in extenso the above statement of facts.] He (Mr. Horsman) was sure the House would now see how far the statement was correct, that the inhabitants of Frome had not been willing to avail themselves of every facility which the law afforded them before they came to seek the interposition of Parliament. He contended that it was not till they had been deprived of every chance of legal redress that they had ventured to seek assistance in the House; but they were shut out by the Bishop of Bath and Wells from that redress which they might have obtained if he had given that moderate delay for which they petitioned. Now he would put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General, which, though he could not expect him to answer in his legal capacity, yet he hoped he would give his opinion as a Member of this House, and anxious to facilitate its deliberations. The hon. and learned Gentleman had had an opportunity of inquiring into the whole of this affair. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twiss on this case, and having also had an opportunity of forming his own judgment and opinion on the matter, he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if the caveat had been lodged, and the question of Mr. Bennett's orthodoxy had gone authoritatively to trial, it was not at least doubtful whether Mr. Bennett would have been able to obtain institution. There were two points to which he would now call the special attention of the House. The one was what the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to do according to law and usage on receiving the certificate produced by Mr. Bennett from his former diocesan; and the second was how far the Bishop was bound to institute him without having first subjected him to a due examination. He would admit that with regard to other points the Bishop had perhaps acted within the strict letter of the law. But did he act according to law in instituting Mr. Bennett on the certificate which he produced from the Bishop of London, and did he before instituting him subject him to a due examination? He had stated on a former occasion what he had heard as matter of rumour, that three clergymen of the diocese of London had signed a certificate to the effect that they had known Mr. Bennett during the whole of the three years last past before the date of the certificate; that they had had opportunities of observing his conduct during the whole of that time; and that they verily believed he had done, held, written, or taught, nothing contrary to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England. He had stated it as matter of surprise—as a rumour which was in itself extremely improbable—but that he had heard it as a rumour to which he was disposed to give credence—that three clergymen of the diocese of London, knowing all that had taken place within the diocese within that very year, had yet put their names to a certificate, stating that during all the time when that clergyman was pronounced unfaithful by his Bishop, and virtually ejected from his living, he had done and taught nothing contrary to the doctrines and discipline of the Church. He had also stated it as a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certificate, though with a qualification, which qualification had been added in the margin. He had now to say that what he stated as a rumour turned out in all essentials to be fact. There was now no doubt that the three clergymen did sign such a certificate; but with regard to the Bishop of London, the fact was not precisely as he had stated it; whether he had added any qualification in the margin of the certificate he did not know, but it appeared that after signing the certificate the Bishop accompanied that certificate with a letter, couched in decided language, stating in what sense that signature was to be received. Of the certificate he knew nothing; but the House ought to see it. If it were to be argued that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had acted according to law, they who made that statement were bound to produce that certificate. [Mr. GLADSTONE: It is in all the ordinary books.] Yes; but the House ought to see this particular certificate. The form of the certificate might be in all the common books; but he wanted to see the names of the three London clergymen who had put their names to this document—who took the extraordinary step of stating that they had known Mr. Bennett during the year 1851—when he was abroad, at Kissengen and other places. He knew nothing whatever of that certificate, but he held in his hand a copy of the Bishop of London's letter to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and which accompanied that certificate. Before reading it, he wished to state to the House how he came into possession of that letter. About three weeks ago, when the discussion was expected to come on in this House, a clergyman called upon him to state that he had in his possession a copy of the Bishop's letter, which he had received from the Bishop himself. It appeared to have come into the clergyman's possession in this manner: he had written to the Bishop of London, and inquired whether the rumours regarding his conduct in the affair were true; and in his reply the Bishop stated that the best answer he could give was to enclose a copy of the letter which he had appended to the certificate. The clergyman offered him (Mr. Horsman) a copy of this letter; but in the first instance he declined receiving it, thinking that if any statement were to be made on the part of the Bishop of London, it would be fairer and more satisfactory to him that it should he made by some friend of his own. But on further consideration he felt that it might be said of him that though he brought the charge he declined to state the defence, and he therefore sent to the clergyman and obtained a copy of the letter, which was to this effect. It had no date, as it was written to accompany the certificate:—

"My Lord—I request that my counter-signature to this testimonial may he considered as simply the expression of my opinion that the clergymen who sign it are beneficed in my diocese, and that they testify to your Lordship that which they verily believe. But I think it my duty to state, that in December, 1850, Mr. Bennett resigned the perpetual curacy of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and that I accepted his resignation because I was of opinion that the peace and good order of the Church in my diocese would he seriously interrupted if he remained incumbent of that curacy. For the reasons of that opinion I beg to refer your Lordship to the correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself, which was published in the Times on December 12, 1850. I am wholly without information of any change which may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles or opinions since his resignation of the cure which he held within my diocese.—"I am your Lordship's faithful servant and brother,

"CHARLES JAMES LONDON."

"The Hon. and Bight Rev. the Lord

Bishop of Bath and Wells."

Now he felt bound to say, and he thought the House would agree with him, that so far as regarded the Bishop of London, this letter acquitted him of being a party to intentionally misleading or deceiving the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Did any one call that a certificate such as was required by law of the former good life and behaviour of the person that was to be instituted to a benefice? It was a strong condemnation—a remonstrance—a warning. It almost amounted to a protest. It said that the peace and good order of the Church were likely to be interrupted by Mr. Bennett's remaining in the diocese of London. Was not that a warning that the same result might possibly occur if he were admitted into the diocese of Bath and Wells? Yet in the teeth of that condemnation and warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to institute Mr. Bennett. He thought, then, the House would agree with him on the first point, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not received the certificate which was required by law. The position of both Prelates in this matter was so extraordinary, that conflicting rumours were naturally in circulation, and explanations were given or suggested of portions of the transactions which would otherwise be unintelligible. Though he could not notice all the rumours that were in circulation, yet some of them were stated on such high authority, and were disseminated so widely, that he felt entitled to mention them, and thus give an opportunity to the persons concerned for explaining them. There was one rumour which he wholly disbelieved, though he had heard it from various quarters, that the letter he had read to the House was not the only one the Bishop of London had written to the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he had written a subsequent one, and that in this second letter he had qualified the strong expressions of the first, and intimated his opinion that, under all the circumstances, Mr. Bennett's institution to Frome was not objectionable. As he had already said, he entirely disbelieved that statement; for it was impossible that the Bishop of London would have allowed the first letter to be put into his (Mr. Horsman's) hands if he had really written a subsequent letter to qualify or contradict it. But he had heard another rumour in relation to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which was likewise so general that he was glad to have this opportunity of mentioning it, as he thought it ought to be explained. He had heard that this letter of the Bishop of London had never been seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells—that he had received the certificate of the three clergymen, countersigned by the bishop, but that he never saw or read the letter. If it were really true that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received the certificate, but that he declined to open or read the letter which accompanied it, he thought that, so far from ignorance of its contents being a palliation of the course he had taken, the House would feel that it was a great aggravation of the grievance of which the public had to complain. But here again he must state that though the rumour was so general and so public as to induce him to mention it to the House, yet he would assume that it was untrue; that the whole proceeding had taken place in its due course; and that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had proceeded on his own judgment and responsibility. He would now proceed to the other point, that of due examination. The canon stated that no bishop should institute a presentee to a benefice unless it appeared on due examination that he was worthy to be a minister. Now what was "due examination?" Here he trusted there would he no difficulty in arriving at a true meaning of the term. The mode and the extent of the examination were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop. The question had been set at rest by a legal authority, to which they would all bow. In the judgment of Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Plover, that learned Judge said—

"It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exercise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire, examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of examination is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a right understanding in religion; and, therefore, the court would require of him that he should institute some proper mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be ascertained. The word of the statute is 'approve,' and he must exercise that approbation according to his conscience, upon such means of information as he may obtain; and every thing that can properly minister to his conscientious approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and reasonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into consideration."

Now, was that the character of the examination instituted by the Bishop of Bath and Wells? What were the points to which he would naturally address himself under the circumstances, in order to inform himself effectually and impartially of the fitness of Mr. Bennett? Manifestly on those points which were brought before him: first, by the memorial of the parishioners of Frome; and, secondly, by the letter of the Bishop of London. To simplify the matter as much as possible, he would refer to one point in each document. The parishioners directed the attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Bennett, in which he said that "all the ideas of the Bible, and the dispersing of the Bible, as in itself a means of propagating Christianity, are a fiction and absurdity." Now that extract from Mr. Bennett's published opinions was brought under the notice of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. All the world knew that Mr. Bennett had published that opinion. He should like to know if that was not a point which the Bishop of Bath and Wells ought to have inquired into? Let them consider the feelings in which the Protestant community of Frome had been brought up with regard to the Bible; let them remember the veneration with which the very possession of it was regarded—that it communicated to the poor man the richest blessing and treasure which he possessed, and that the richest man without it was worse than the veriest pauper—considering also this was not the opinion of the Protestant community of this country with regard to themselves alone; but if there was one thing more than another which was an honour to the Protestant community, it was the ardour and the earnestness with which they laboured to impart the same blessing to others—and that there was no toil, nor peril, nor persecution, nor death itself, which they were not willing to hazard in the exalted enterprise of putting into the hands of the heathen and the outcast that Book which they told them they had only to receive and believe in to be saved. That was the feeling of the Protestant community of Frome; and yet a man came among them armed with the authority and sanction of the Bishop, and told them that all the feeling in which they and their families had been brought up—in which their children had been educated, and by which their aged had been comforted in the hour of death—the feelings which had sustained them in the midst of every adversity and trial—he told them that all ideas of the Bible and of the dissemination of Christianity by means of the Bible, were positive fictions and absurdities. Why, with the feelings of these people towards the Bible, this would sound to them little less than blasphemy and profaneness. If he had entered into the cottages of the poor, and thrown their Bibles into the fire, he did not believe they would have been more surprised and shocked. Well, then, what ought the Bishop to have done? Was not this a point on which he ought to have made inquiry? If it was his duty to examine Mr. Bennett at all, ought he not to have said to him, "Here is a statement with which you are charged, and which has shocked the Protestant feelings of your parish—I must have an explanation upon this point, and that explanation must go forth to the world. You state in your letter to Lord John Russell that you are "unchanged and unchangeable." Are you unchanged in this opinion? If you are changed, then let me, let the parish, let the world know it; if you are unchanged, I should hold myself disgraced, as a Protestant prelate, if I were to grant you institution? "He wanted to know did the Bishop of Bath and Wells examine Mr. Bennett on this point? He thought there was strong evidence to show that he did not, and that no answer had been given by Mr. Bennett to show that on this point his opinion was changed. He would now refer to the second point—the letter of the Bishop of London. The Bishop referred to the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Mr. Bennett, which involved a still further reference to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and Lord John Russell, in which Mr. Bennett set forth with great force and vehemence his opinions with regard to the supremacy of the Crown. This was a point of peculiar importance; because every clergyman, previous to his institution to a living, is obliged by the 35th Canon to swear to three articles, one of which is, that the Queen's Majesty, under God, has supreme authority in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things and causes, and further to swear that he took this oath willingly and ex animo. Mr. Bennett gave, in his letter to Lord John Russell, a history of the working of his mind with regard to the Queen's supremacy, which was worthy of notice. It came at a peculiar moment, when after the decision in the Gorham case, a movement took place amongst a large portion of the clergy of the Church, and a circular or protest had been signed by about 2,000 clergymen of the Church of England, all of whom had taken this oath, but who declared that they had taken it in a peculiar sense. That circular contained, among others, the names of three clergymen, the first of whom was Archdeacon Manning, who had since gone over to the Church of Rome; the other two were Robert Isaac Wilberforce, archdeacon, and William Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, who still continued to hold their preferments in the Church of England. Mr. Bennett stated that after the Gorham decision he became uneasy in his conscience with respect to the oath of supremacy he had taken; that he sought the opinion of counsel learned in the law whether the oath he had taken bound him to obey that decision; and that he received the opinion of counsel, who stated that submission to the civil power was binding upon the consciences of those who had taken the oath; that it was an acknowledged rule in morals that oaths were to be taken in animo imponentis, and that should any new case arise, or any development of circumstances not before contemplated, still the oath was binding, and of continued obligation in the newly developed sense. Mr. Bennett then, though thus uneasy in his conscience, did not resign his living, which he had obtained only on condition of his subscription to the oath—he contented himself with protesting against the oath being received in its natural sense. Shortly afterwards the controversy occurred with the Bishop of London, and then Mr. Bennett resigned his living. Hut when he was presented to the living of Frome, and presented himself, he was again called upon to take the same oath, with regard to which he said he was uneasy in his conscience, and with regard to which he stated in his letter to Lord John Russell that he was "unchanged and unchangeable." Now. what course did the Bishop of Bath and Wells take with regard to this matter? He knew the opinions Mr. Bennett held respecting the oath; and he would put it to the House whether this was not a point on which the Bishop might have properly examined him and asked, "Do you now subscribe the oath in animo imponentis, or do you take it in a non-natural sense? I must have your answer. Are you unchanged and unchangeable—do you take the oath of the Queen's supremacy in the manner in which it is intended to be taken, or do you take it with any mental reservation or qualification?" The House ought to know whether those questions had been put, and the nature of the answers. It was not sufficient to tell the House that at a private conference and on a private examination those important questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the Bishop? What, he would ask, was the object of the office of a bishop? The satisfaction and security of the Church. What was the object of his judicial office? To prevent schisms, to put an end to differences, and to promote harmony amongst the people. And how were those ends to be obtained without publicity? It was the essence of justice that it should be known to the public that a due investigation had taken place, and that judgment had been given after a full inquiry. He would admit that in a case where a secret charge was brought against a clergyman, the examination might well be conducted in private; but in the present case the charge had been public, and the answer should have been made public—the offence had been committed before the world, and the justification should have been known to the world. Mr. Bennett's predilections for the Church of Rome had been notorious—the change should have been publicly communicated, for it was essential to the peace, the harmony, and the satisfaction of the community, not only that everything which had been proved to the satisfaction of the right rev. Prelate, but that its being so proved satisfactory should have been made known to those whose spiritual interests were so deeply bound up with the spiritual views of Mr. Bennett. He was sorry to say, that it was not in the character of an impartial judge, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells appeared in this transaction, but that he had demeaned himself to that character which was, to all right-thinking men, the most objectionable and the most odious—the sinking of the dignity of the judge in the littleness of the partisan. He thought he had now established his three propositions. In the first place, he had shown that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in such a manner as to shut out all means of redress which the parishioners of Frome might otherwise have resorted to; secondly, that he had instituted him without a proper certificate from his previous diocesan; and, thirdly, that he had done so without due examination. The question of such a malversation of office by the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries had been well described by a great authority, whom he had before cited—Hooker:—

"If, now, there arise any matter of grievance between the pastor and the people that are under him, they have their ordinary, a judge indifferent, to determine their causes and to end their strife. But, in case there were no such appointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the end of their quarrels?… But the hurt is more manifestly seen which doth grow to the Church of God by faults inherent in their several actions; as, when they carelessly ordain; when they institute negligently; when corruptly they bestow church livings, benefices, prebends, and rooms es- pecially of jurisdictions; when they visit for gain's sake rather than with serious intent to do good; when their courts, erected for the maintenance of good order, are disordered; when they regard not the clergy under them; when neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which this authority should serve; when anything appeareth in them rather than a fatherly affection towards the flock of Christ; when they have no respect to posterity; and, finally, when they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their authority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth out of these defects must needs be exceeding great."—[Eccl. Polity, b. vii. ch. xxiv. 3.]

And must not the hurt in this instance be exceedingly great? Was it any answer to him to say, as it had been said a few nights before, that Mr. Bennett had to a great extent won the confidence of his parishioners? Was it an answer to him that 1,000 of them had signed a memorial, stating that they were satisfied with the soundness of his doctrine? If it were true that Mr. Bennett had acquired all the popularity in Frome of which they had heard so much, he drew from it an inference very different from that to which the rev. gentleman's friends had arrived. He could understand that if they were told that Mr. Bennett was universally disliked in Frome—that no one would go near him, or have anything to do with his teaching—he could in such a case understand the argument that the conduct of this individual was unworthy of notice, and that the mischief would be shortlived; but when it was said, "True, he may be a Roman Catholic, but he is becoming popular;" or, "he may be a Jesuit, but he is very attractive;" or, "he may pronounce the Bible as a means of Christianity a fiction and an absurdity, but he is converting all the parish to his opinions;" then he would reply, so far from Mr. Bennett's popularity reconciling him to his appointment, it only justified the very worst forebodings of those who objected to it, and who from his ministry anticipated the greatest mischief. He said this, assuming the statement about the memorial to be true; but he believed the reverse, and he would advise that that memorial should not be again adduced before the House, for it would not come out pure and undefiled from the inquiry. The question now was, what was to be done? It was admitted by the Government that the importance of the question could not be exaggerated, and that an inquiry was not only essential but inevitable. Then the question arose, could they institute an inquiry in any other man- ner than that which he had proposed? Gould they proceed by resolution? They had no facts before them on which they could resolve, for the facts were denied and disputed. Then what was the mode of inquiry open to thorn? He was prepared for objections to every mode of inquiry that could be suggested, for he knew what the House could do when they wished to avoid a disagreeable topic. They were aware of the case of the unhappy tradesman who applied to his customer for the amount of an account which it was not quite convenient to pay. If he called early, the servant said, "his master was not up;" if he called in the middle of the day the answer was, that "the master had just gone out;" if in the evening, "the master had company;" if he were patient and civil, he could afford to wait; and if impatient and clamorous, then he was an impudent scoundrel, and deserved to be kicked down stairs. He hoped that no farce of that kind would be played by the House of Commons. The House would see he had not been impatient—that he had not been in a hurry to propose a Parliamentary Committee. Although he believed from the first that the best mode of inquiry would be by a Parliamentary Committee, it was not until he was now told on the best authority, that of Ministers themselves, that no other mode was open to them that he had made that proposition, for he felt it was not one in which the House would agree if other modes of inquiry wore open. He knew that many of his own friends had objections to such a mode of inquiry as long as others existed; and therefore he thought it more becoming to them, and more respectful to the House, to propose in the first instance an inquiry the most agreeable to their wishes, an inquiry by a Commission. He did not think that if his Motion had been carried, such a Committee would have been utterly futile. If the House had moved an address to the Crown, it would have been one important step towards the inquiry; but if the House of Commons had addressed the Crown, the point would of course have been referred to Her Majesty's Ministers. Then Her Majesty's Ministers would have consulted the law officers of the Crown, and if they found an inquiry by a Commission impracticable, of course they would not advise a favourable answer to the Address. and then the grounds of that advice would have to be stated to the House. But if Her Majesty's Ministers did not proceed with that caution for which he gave them credit, but advised that a favourable answer should be returned to the Address, and an inquiry was commenced, and it was found that answers would not be returned to the interrogatories, that again would have to be submitted to the House, so that they would be compelled to see how they could retrieve the false step of Her Majesty's; Ministers, and vindicate the supremacy of the House. In either case their position would be just the same as now, only now that the Government, after four weeks' anxious deliberation, informed the House that they could not institute an inquiry, and that it must be instituted by a Commission, or not at all. Then he would ask what was the objection to an inquiry by a Committee of the House? Here was a particular state of facts—here was a particular exercise of the right of institution by a bishop of the Established Church, and it was proposed to inquire how far the intentions of the Legislature had been carried out. He could not understand how any objection could be taken to a constitutional inquiry by the House of Commons into such a subject. They were every day legislating on ecclesiastical affairs. They had even now several Bills relating to the Church on the Order book; and not a week passed during which they were not called to consider some question connected with the Established Church. It was inevitable that they should constantly do so. It was one of the conditions on which the Established Church was upheld by Parliament, that Parliament should be not only empowered, but bound, to exercise a control over that Church, in order that abuses might be removed, that scandals might be inquired into, and that grievances might be redressed. He was always sorry to hear that dangerous objection to Parliament dealing with the Church. They were repeatedly told that the House of Commons ought no longer to take cognisance of Church affairs, because the House was not now composed exclusively of members of the Established Church But why was Parliament not composed of members of the Established Church? Because the people whom it represented were not composed entirely of members of the Established Church; and if they said that the House of Commons, as representing the people, was so dissevered from the Established Church that they could not take cognisance of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation was so dissevered from the Established Church that there should be no Established Church at all. That was the logical and inevitable result of the argument if pressed home; but he, on the other hand, held that the Church, as established by law, was the creation of Parliament, that it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to its jurisdiction, and that there was no duty so obvious, no responsibility so undeniable, as that, when it had established a Church for the teaching of one religion, it should not allow it to be made subservient to the interests of another—that it should not allow a minister of one Church to become the secret agent of another. He would take it that no objection would be taken to this Motion on the ground of the advanced period of the Session. He might, if such were taken, refer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Warwickshire on Maynooth, and would say, like him, that the people of England, having the question raised, were anxious to see if Parliament were earnest in dealing with it. He believed that the inquiry would not be of long duration. The witnesses whom he would call in support of his allegations would be few, their evidence would be short, and he believed the whole examination would not exceed a week. He would ask the House to be careful as to the manner with which they would deal with this question. Here was the case of a clergyman who had been an incumbent of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, whose ministration had been carried on in such a manner, and had been attended with such notoriety, that the services had been interrupted by mobs of people, the minister had been rebuked, and virtually ejected by his diocesan, to whom he then addressed a public letter, in which he told him that he found himself in a false position in the Church of England, and must seek peace elsewhere. He then went abroad, where it was stated his attendance at a Roman Catholic place of worship was so notorious that he was claimed by the Roman Catholic clergy as a convert to the Church of Rome, and as one in full communion with that Church; further it was stated, that during the whole time he was at Kissengen he never attended the Protestant place of worship, but was an habitual attender at a Roman Catholic Church; and when these statements were brought to his knowledge in a friendly spirit by a brother clergyman, he received them in such a manner as to lead to the unavoidable conclusion that they were true. He was then presented to a benefice in a different diocese, and went to another bishop for institution. The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, memoralised their Bishop, and gave extracts from Mr. Bennett's published works. The condemnation of his former diocesan was again virtually repeated. The fact was brought before the Bishop in such a way that he could satisfy himself that he had denied the supremacy of the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a qualified sense. All these things were either brought before the Bishop, or would have been if the desired delay had taken place; but without the delay and without the inquiry required by law, without the proper certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in such a manner as to shut out the parishioners from the only tribunal established by law before which they could have redress. He must say that when he was told that in such a case a Parliamentary Committee was the only resource, because a Commission of the Crown would not be respected, the statement created considerable surprise in his mind. During the last few years they had had some hundreds of commissions, invested with no more authority than that proposed, which had inquired into all kinds of subjects, which had afforded to the House much valuable information, and the efforts of which had in no case been baffled. And now, in a case of great grievance and of unparalleled scandal, they were told that a commission of inquiry could not succeed, for answers could not be enforced to the questions put by it. He took it that this statement was not made but on good grounds and authority. Taking this peculiar case, he hoped this was not the answer given by the Prelates of the Established Church, for he believed that by no other class would a commission issued in the Queen's name not be received with immediate respect. He believed that at the door of the humblest cottager a commission issued in the name of the Queen would be received with respect, and that all Her Majesty's subjects would evince their loyalty by respecting a commission to inquire into any fit subject, no matter how unpalatable it might be, because that commission was issued in the Queen's name. He should have thought that the Prelates of the Established Church would have been the first to respect the Queen's authority; that they would have been glad of an opportunity to acknowledge the principle, of which their Sovereign had set such an example, that to the highest rank was attached the highest responsibility, and that great powers and privileges were to be held for public purposes, and not desecrated for selfish ends. That was the principle acknowledged by their Queen. He would leave the House to deal with this question, for he did not consider it a Government or a party question, but a question addressed to the conscience of every man, and one on which every man should exercise the right of private judgment. He would say that Parliament was now responsible for the manner in which they should deal with a question which could not be evaded. The responsibility which might have formerly rested on Mr. Bennett, or when Mr. Bennett was instituted, on the Bishop, was, now that it had been brought before Parliament, thrown sole and undivided on the Parliament. The question, either as affecting the sincerity of their faith, the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdiction of Parliament, involved most serious considerations; and he thought it would be a very unfortunate and very fatal event if Parliament on that occasion were by a majority to refuse the inquiry which every one admitted ought to be instituted. A majority in such a case would only show how fatal and how dangerous a majority is when opposed to truth. A majority, in such a case, could not influence public opinion; it could not acquit Mr. Bennett, for public opinion already condemned him, nor would it acquit the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for his own acts convicted him; but this a majority might do—public reprobation might be diverted from other parties, and the finger of scorn would be pointed at the House of Commons—it would be said that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their loyalty was a sham; and that in endeavouring to screen individual delinquency they permitted a public wrong—that they were degrading themselves, and destroying the Church.

rose and said; Sir, I rise to order. I have to appeal to the House on the conduct of an hon. Member who sits near me (Mr. Feargus O'Connor). I was calling on the House to divide, not seeing any hon. Member rise to address the House, when the hon. Gentleman turned round and struck me in the side. Sir, I have told the hon. Gentleman on a former accasion that if he addressed me in the House, or pursued an annoying course of conduct towards me, I should call the attention of the House to the matter.

The hon. Member for Nottingham has been so long a Member of the House that it is unnecessary for me to remind him that no Member can be permitted to interrupt the debates, and I am sorry to say that the hon. Member has so habitually violated the rules of the House that, if he further persists in this course, I shall feel it my painful duty to call the attention of the House to the hon. Member by name, and it will then be for the House to take such ulterior steps as may prevent the repetition of such misconduct.

immediately rose and addressed the Speaker in a most excited and incoherent manner.

I now must call on the hon. Member by name. Mr. O'Connor, you are now called upon to apologise to the House; and if you have any apology to offer to the House, now is your time to do so.

I beg the pardon of the hon. Gentleman, and now I apologise to the House. I beg pardon.

Sir, I am sure the House will not permit its attention to be distracted from this important discussion by the painful scene which has just taken place; and I will commence by expressing my regret that I am called on to follow the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) without any intimation from Her Majesty's Government as to the course which they intend to take on this question; because, although I, being personally acquainted with the eminent individual who is the object of the hon. Gentleman's charge, have made it my study to inform myself on the subject of his conduct, yet as this is, after all, mainly a legal question, and, as such, cannot be discussed without the application of legal knowledge and authority, I had hoped and expected to hear from the Government, or from one of the law advisers of the Government, their views on the distinct legal issues which have been raised—and I must say not unfairly raised, but broadly and visibly raised, by the hon. Gentleman on a question on which we might expect that the Government would be prepared, with the authority of a Government, to offer their advice, to the House as to the course which we should take. The hon. Gentleman has raised this question as a legal question; but I regret he did not strictly confine himself to its legal bearings, and that the hon. Gentleman, in his desire to attain the truth, which I do not at all question, has allowed his oratorical powers and the warmth of his own feelings to mix themselves with the facts of the case to a degree that with the ability which the hon. Gentleman ever displays, may prove most dangerous, unless we endeavour to bring ourselves back from whatever warmth of feeling has been infused into the consideration of the case, and to take, in discussing a legal question, a strict and dry view of the merits of the case. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman through all the points of his speech. The hon. Gentleman in the concluding portion tells you that you must adopt his Motion, or that your Protestantism is a pretence, and your loyalty a sham. Now, Sir, it appears to me that this issue is to strong—it appears to me that we may on this subject exercise a discretion—that we are entitled to test the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and to see whether he is borne out by authority in the doctrine he has laid down—to test whether the hon. Gentleman has adhered to his own doctrines—to see that he has not overturned one portion of his speech by what he advanced in another—in short, that we are entitled to say "yes" or "no" on this question, regardless of the threat that if we say "no" our "Protestantism is a pretence, and our loyalty a sham." I will first give the House an example of the magnifying powers by which the hon. Gentleman no doubt deceives himself. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government, in arguing this question, intimated their objection to a Commission, on the ground that they might not be able to procure answers to their inquiries. That is a fact; but all the rest of the hon. Gentleman's statement on this subject is inference. Let us see what are his facts, and on what he builds his inferences, and with what modesty he applies them to the whole episcopal bench. The hon. Gentleman having inferred that the Bishop of Bath and Wells would refuse to answer any questions put to him, applies this inference to the whole bench of bishops, and on this inference founds a tirade against the whole episcopal bench, and says that there is no other class in England that would be guilty of such conduct. I am not here to defend the Bishop of Bath and Wells, or anybody else, if they do not do their duty; but I say that bishops, like other people, are entitled to justice, and to some decency of treatment, and I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman does not show them that justice or treat them with that decency to which they are entitled. I have heard the hon. Gentleman before this bold in his denunciations against them; I have heard him build up fabrics of accusation against particular prelates on account of acts which, when they came to be examined, turned out to be acts of splendid munificence. I allude, as the House no doubt understand me, to the Horfield Manor. The hon. Gentleman was subsequently bound to admit that his accusations were unjust, that his charges were unfounded. He found that every material charge he made was perfectly untrue, and that the facts upon which he relied utterly failed to sustain him. The hon. Gentleman has taken the function of a public censor upon him. The character is not new to him. I remember, in 1838, when the hon. Member was an Elder of the Presbyterian Church—(A laugh)—I do not state it as a reproach, that he then made a charge against a most eminent man, Dr. Chalmers. [Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!] I admire the cheer of the hon. Gentleman; he surely does not deny the fact. But Dr. Chalmers was obliged to speak and publish for the purpose of demonstrating what he called the "aerial nature" of the accusation. However, as the hon. Gentleman has taken upon himself the character of a public accuser, he is bound to take care of the language he uses, and, while I am sure he never wilfully deviates from the real facts of the case, he is bound to be careful that the views which he presents can be brought to the standard and criterion of fact; and if he goes into disquisitions requiring the aid of legal knowledge, he is bound to inform himself what is the true state of the law before he charges any person with its infraction. The hon. Gentleman should moreover avoid launching charges against bishops or eminent men, not that they should be protected more than any body else, but he should, avoid launching charges against any person whatever unless he is sure that the principles on which he proceeds are sound, and capable of bearing investigation. This is the dilemma which the hon. Gentleman has put to the House—which, however, I should be sorry to accept—either this House is fit for debates like the present, or else you ought not to have an Established Church at all. I am in fear and trembling to differ with the hon. Gentleman; but it does appear to me just possible that we ought to have an Established Church, and yet that this House is not the fitting arena for discussions like the present. Sir, I do not scruple to say that this House is not a fitting arena for these discussions. I do not say that it is possible to avoid them altogether. When I speak of the warmth with which statements are coloured, I admit that there is much provocation-—that there have been many imprudencies—that much blame has been found justly, and I will admit that the Church of England is rent and torn from head to foot with her dissensions—but I put it to the House solemnly and sincerely, and I ask, Do you think that religious divisions are likely to be mitigated—do you think that the sores and wounds of the Church of England are likely to be healed—by rhetorical declamation, by the misrepresentations of occurrences, and the misstatement and exaggeration of facts? I do not know whether I shall offend in the same way; but if I do, I say my guilt will be double, because I have the deepest sense of the injury and the mischief which is wrought by these discussions. The hon. Gentleman, surely, does not imagine that by means of these oratorical parades made in this House, and received with cheers, the dangerous influence of the men whom he wishes to put down will be overcome? If he knows anything of the nature of religious partisanship, he must know that heat and violence on one side, engender heat and violence on the other. If the question at issue were the maintenance of sectarian spirit and feelings in the Church—if the influence of Mr. Bennett were in question before that House, I know no better method of maintaining and propagating that influence than by singling him out as the object of attack, if it should appear that these attacks were not founded in justice. Now, I think that the first question the House has to consider—and is the idea they must endeavour to carry along with them in the present discussion, if they wish to neutralise its evils and bring it to good—the first question which they must clear up for themselves is this—Was the country to be governed, whether in ecclesiastical or civil matters, by the private opinion of particular men, according to the popularity which they may possess at the moment, or by a system of fixed law? If it is to be governed by the private opinions of popular men, then I say representative institutions would become little better than a nuisance, and ecclesiastical discussions would become the bane and pestilence of this House. Sir, we have not on the present occasion to decide what would have been in the abstract right. We have to decide one of two questions: first of all, have the laws been obeyed? secondly, are the laws good? If they are good, obey them; if they are not good, alter them:—but you have no right to establish an extra-legal system of influence or jurisdiction, by which you are to operate on the regular administration of the laws. The law must move in its fixed course, irrespective of the opinion of the day, irrespective of the opinion of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth. That is the first principle I set out with. And now I wish the House to keep clearly before them who is the person who is brought in question before them? The speech of the hon. Gentleman has a good deal cleared up that question, and I thank him for it. Who is the person? As I understand, the person whose conduct is before the House is the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Bishop of Bath and Wells is a great officer of the State. I have long held the opinion—and I do not shrink from avowing it—that it is a great absurdity that our law should afford no ready means of correcting a delinquent bishop; and I frankly own that I would view with the greatest favour any judicious proposal to effect such an object. The point I shall, however, put is, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells is not a delinquent bishop; that there is not a prima facie case of delinquency of any sort or kind, or in any manner or degree, against him. It is the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells which is questioned, and is in dispute; let us therefore put aside all other parties. We have nothing to do with the patron in this case. I say this, because the hon. Gentleman has adopted words so large in his Motion that it might appear that they included all persons in the case; but the hon. Member has disclaimed any intention of bringing any accusation against the conduct of the patron, who as he admits had acted not only according to law, but according to conscience. There is another important element in this case, to which I beg great attention. I allude to the feelings of the people over whom a particular presentee is appointed to preside. But the hon. Gentleman is bound to admit, and indeed he has admitted, that in this particular case, through whatsoever peculiarity, and through whatsoever delusion, the people of Frome are perfectly satisfied with what the patron has done. [Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!] Then the hon. Gentleman does not admit that the people of Frome are satisfied? Now I do not believe it was an intentional misstatement upon the part of the hon. Gentleman, but it was a misstatement when he represented that the objectors to Mr. Bennett's preferment were the parishioners and clergy of Frome. I do not want to give more value to this fact than it deserves, but I can state that the parishioners of Frome are not dissatisfied, but are satisfied and gratified with this appointment. I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Miller, a churchwarden of Frome; it is dated the 17th of April, and is addressed to the Marquess of Bath:—

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of yesterday's date, and will proceed to answer the inquiries therein contained, fully, fairly, and impartially. The appointment of Mr. Bennett is not unacceptable to the body of the parishioners. This I boldly assert—this I am prepared boldly to maintain. The inhabitants of Frome are under many and great obligations to the house of Thynne, but there is none they more cheerfully recognise or more gratefully appreciate than the blessing bestowed on them in the regard manifested by that noble family for their spiritual good in nominating Mr. Bennett vicar of Frome. I assert, and without the slightest fear of contradiction, that since Mr. Bennett commenced his ministry the morning congregations have increased at least one-third, and that as to the evening services, there never were so many persons assembled within the walls of St. Peter's Church. The lowest calculation last Sunday evening was 2,000. At the commencement many may have been attracted by curiosity and the love of novelty; but at the end of three months there is not only no diminu- tion, but the congregation is increased and increasing."

Now, whatever opinion hon. Gentlemen may hold of the sentiments in that letter, the question is not the propriety or justice of the sentiments of these people with regard to Mr. Bennett; it is whether these are or are not the sentiments of the people of Frome; and had the parishioners been overridden in this matter? I understand the hon. Gentleman to deny that Mr. Miller represents the opinion of the people of Frome. I find in a postscript to his letter, that at a vestry meeting held last Thursday he was unanimously re-elected churchwarden. I do not deny that the movement was originally got up by some clergymen in Frome. I think that nothing could be more indiscreet than the proceedings of these gentlemen. But under their influence fifty-four parishioners protested against his appointment—out of these only sixteen belonged to the parish church—and more than one-half in the space of a few weeks returned to Mr. Bennett. And here I may state a fact which is of a solemn character. One of the fifty-four who signed the protest was taken alarmingly ill; he sent for Mr. Bennett, and he died receiving his ministration. But here were fifty odd persons protesting out of a congregation, while more than 1,100 persons in an address bore testimony to the soundness of Mr. Bennett's doctrine. Now the hon. Gentleman will no doubt say this only proves the depth of blind delusion into which the parishioners of Frome have sunk. I say, however, that the hon. Gentleman, instead of taking these inflated and extravagant views, and instead of assuming that every one of his charges were established truths, ought to have weighed these facts carefully before he appealed to the House; and I say that this address of the parishioners of Frome leads me to the encouraging hope that he has been conducting himself wisely, and—whether, like other men, he may have been rocked and shaken in the ecclesiastical troubles which have disturbed the Church—that he is now settled in his allegiance to her. Sir, I say that this is the rational inference which we ought to draw when we see the parishioners of Frome expressing their delight at his appointment. Well, but Mr. Bennett is not properly before the House. I think there is good reason why he should not be so. The accusations against Mr. Bennett divide themselves into two classes: his proceedings at Kissengen, and his public ministration in this country. The latter is summed up in what the Bishop of London has done. With respect to the proceedings at Kissengen, I am not sure of the state of the facts, except in one important particular. The hon. Gentleman assumed that as Mr. Bennett did not appear at the English Church at Kissengen, he had proved unfaithful to the Church of England. I think the hon. Gentleman forgot that Mr. Bennett was travelling as a chaplain to a private family. Now, in the eye of the Church and the law, a chaplain and a family constitute as complete a congregation as you can under your defective ecclesiastical arrangements have the means of calling together in Kissengen. And I say this because in Italy, as well as other places on the Continent, these congregations are in many cases only another name for anarchy. The allegation then that he was not discharging his duty as a clergyman of the Church of England, by absenting himself, therefore utterly fails. As to the story about the altar stone which he carried about with him, and which every Roman Catholic priest is bound to carry with him, it entirely passes my powers of belief. The hon. Gentleman may be able to make it good, but it will greatly surprise me if he is. But we have only to do with Mr. Bennett's proceedings in so far as they affect the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I do not think that the Bishop of Bath and Wells could have taken notice of these proceedings at Kissengen, inasmuch as they took place out of the purview of our ecclesiastical law. The case of the Rev. Baptist Noel is in point. When that gentleman went to Scotland he officiated in Presbyterian chapels in Inverness-shire, and preached in Presbyterian pulpits. His conduct was made the subject of comment; but it was decided that the Bishop had no power, as the offence was committed out of the jurisdiction of the English Church. The accusations against the Bishop of Bath and Wells resolve themselves into three distinct charges. First of all, undue haste, that haste not being needed, but being founded on a set and corrupt purpose to prevent the parishioners of Frome from having a fair opportunity of objecting to his appointment. The second charge is that he instituted Mr. Bennett without requiring the proper certificate from his former Bishop; and the third charge is that he instituted him without a due examination into his doctrine and teaching. Now, it appears to me that each and every one of these charges is without the slightest shadow of a foundation. The hon. Gentleman has to-night amended his first statement. His first statement led the House to believe that when a bishop received a presentee he was invested with a large discretionary power either to accept or reject him. The case of a presentee is not like that of a curate, or like that of a man who makes application to be ordained. If objection can be made against the moral conduct of an applicant, under these circumstances the Bishop is bound to reject him. But is that the nature of the Bishop's power and functions with regard to a presentee? What is the genius of your laws upon this subject? Perhaps the hon. Member imported his knowledge upon this subject from Scotland. Perhaps his familiarity with the Scottish customs may account for his ideas upon this point. In Scotland a better system prevails. The law of Scotland gives to the parishioners free power of objecting to a presentee; but, although it looks with jealousy on such objections, still there is a machinery by which free scope is allowed to the party-objecting. But that is not the genius of the law of England. The inherent spirit of the English law is to guard with every imaginable security and jealousy the advowson of the patron, to shield and secure his civil rights, and to protect the inchoate rights of the presentee. The spirit of the Constitution soon becomes the spirit of all your courts. So it has been with regard to the law of mortmain. Gathering the spirit of your legislation, they have given a rigid construction to the statute. Well, then, the spirit and feeling of your courts is to view with the utmost jealousy any infringement of the civil rights of the patron. The powers of the bishop are accordingly narrowed, in order to give effect to that which the law favours. Could the Bishop of Bath and Wells say to the presentee, "You have written passages with regard to Scripture which do not meet my views, and therefore I refuse to institute you;" or could he, when the presentee took the oath of supremacy, also refuse him institution because he interpreted it differently to him? Or because the Bishop of London virtually, as the hon. Gentleman says, but not legally, expelled him from his diocese, could the Bishop of Bath and Wells say, "You were expelled by the Bishop of London, and therefore I cannot admit you?" Or because three or four clergymen of Frome, and fifty parishioners, present objections to Mr. Bennett, and request him not to grant institution, could the Bishop of Bath and Wells accede to that request? Why, he would be forthwith called on to render an account of his conduct in the Court of Queen's Bench, and it would not be enough to tell the Court that the Bishop of London and fifty parishioners of Frome disapproved of Mr. Bennett's conduct. He would be obliged to show, absolutely and positively, drily and legally, that he was not bound to institute Mr. Bennett; and it would not be enough to show him indifference: he must show that he either taught heretical doctrines, or failed in his moral conduct, or that he was deficient in his learning. If he did not do one of these things, he had no locus standi in the Court, which would be no trifle. One would suppose, from the statements of the hon. Gentleman, and the favour with which they were received in this House, that this matter of a strict examination by the bishop of presentees is very popular in this country. But, as far back as 1624 the House appointed a Committee to inquire into certain grievances complained of against Dr. Harsnet, the Bishop of Norwich; and on the 7th of May Sir Edward Coke reported from the Committee of Grievances several complaints against the Bishop, and one of those complaints was that he did not institute presentees, to the prejudice of patrons. Much later there is the case of the Bishop of Exeter and the vicarage of Bamford Speke. The hon. Gentleman supposed that the Bishop was endowed with large powers of rejection. But the Bishop of Exeter knew to the contrary by a somewhat hard experience—by a bill of costs, amounting to somewhat over 3,000l. And this, again, is a point to be observed. The ruinous and destructive—the crushing—costs of these ecclesiastical suits are enough to paralyse any episcopacy, however anxious to discharge their duties. Really you can hardly expect men to face such tremendous difficulties. There was one case which I may mention: it occurred to a friend of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth—the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. That prelate had a prosecution against a clergyman for immoral conduct, which cost him no less a sum than 4,200l. On the principle that justice ought to be done, even to bishops, these facts ought to be remembered when they spoke of the extravagant amount of revenues which they received: they ought to be recollected, not indeed to be preserved, but in order to be mitigated. Again, so zealous is the law to shield the patrons and their presentees, and to baffle the episcopacy, that it has provided two remedies, both founded on the same principle—the one by a quare impedit in the Queen's Bench, and the other by duplex querela. I have already stated that the bishop would be liable to a writ of quare impedit if he refused to institute. He would then be called upon by the Court to show reasons for his conduct, and if he failed in any of the necessary proofs he would be cast and condemned in costs. The Gorham Case was illustrative of the spirit of the law, which provided the clerk with two complete and entire systems of remedy, founded on the same principle of defence of the civil rights of the patron, and the inchoate rights of the presentee. In the duplex querela it was open to the clerk, if the bishop refused to institute him, to refer to the court of the Archbishop, and from him to the Committee of Privy Council. That was the course taken by Mr. Gorham against the Bishop of Exeter. Now, it is absolutely of vital importance to any fair view of the case, to bear in mind that in every step he took, the Bishop of Bath and Wells should keep within the range of his legal powers. The moment he got upon doubtful or beyond legal grounds, he would have been sconced to a fearful extent. The hon. Gentleman says the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded with undue haste, and for that he ascribes an unfair motive—the motive of bearing down the parishioners of Frome; but he (Mr. Gladstone) said the Bishop's conduct led in his mind to an opposite conclusion. I must apologise to the House for trespassing upon them so long; but the accusation of the hon. Gentleman was two and a half hours long, and it was very easy to listen to it, decked out as it was with all the embellishments that could make it agreeable to an audience; I, however, ask the House to take a strict and impartial view of this case, to assume a judicial character, and to give to Mr. Bennett the benefit of that character. Well, then, as to the parishioners of Frome. If the parishioners of Frome were anxious to interrupt these proceedings, they were bound to place the Bishop in a legal position to do what they required. They were bound to enter a caveat. If they had done so, they would have furnished the Bishop of Bath and Wells with a solid ground for delay; but they did not do so. Why did they not do so in the first instance? Why did they wait till the last moment? They knew that this was a legal matter, and they had legal advice at their disposal. It was known on the 30th of December that Mr. Bennett was to be instituted, but the institution did not take place until the 24th of January. A caveat could have been entered in twenty-four hours. This showed that there was plenty of time. But was this all? The caveat was ready on the 23rd of January, when Dr. Twiss advised its being entered, and Mr. Bennett was not instituted until the 24th. What was the conduct of the parties, although they did not enter a caveat? They presented petitions. By entering a caveat they would have assumed a forensic: position, and would have been bound to have proceeded with their objection, but they did not wish to do so; they would so have made themselves liable to costs. It was a much more convenient course to present petitions, which were totally informal, and which, if the Bishop of Bath and Wells had alleged in the Court of Queen's Bench, they would have laughed in his face. They would have told him, "You are acting as a judicial officer, and, as such, are bound to proceed according to the forms of legal process." Why, there was not an attorney in Frorne who would not have told them that if they were in earnest, the only way to testify it was by entering a caveat. That was the only regular and legitimate mode of enabling the Bishop to accede to their request. What was the position of the Bishop when he received their addresses? Would he have been entitled to stay proceedings on account of them? The duty of the Bishop on receiving their addresses was perfectly plain and straight- I forward. It was his duty only to see whether they contained any judicial matter, and if they did, whether it was to be supported judicially. The hon. Gentleman may think that the petitions did supply judicial matter; but what I want to know is this—if these parties believed that a legal offence had been committed, why did they not adopt the open and straightforward course of entering a caveat with the Bishop's secretary? As they did not do this, I say the Bishop could not have been justified in delaying institution. A Judge cannot delay justice, any more than he can refuse it. If the Bishop of Bath and Wells had delayed to institute Mr. Bennett into a valuable preferment, he would have done him a legal wrong. As regards the question of delay, there were twenty-six days between the time when the people of Frome became aware of the intention to present Mr. Bennett, and the time when he was instituted. I put it to the House, if these parties were in earnest, it was their duty to do one of two things: either to consult the Bishop, and ask whether he thought there was ground for legal proceedings against Mr. Bennett—in which case, of course they would have been bound by his opinion; the other course was, not to consult the Bishop at all, but to enter a caveat and commence legal proceedings. Neither of those courses did they choose; but their demand was this:—"We find Mr. Bennett does not hold opinions acceptable to us; therefore we ask you, not only to undertake the costs and risk of legal proceedings, but to take a course which you in your own mind believe to be bad and untenable." I leave that fact fresh in your minds—that on the 23rd of January they sought advice, twenty-five days after they ought to have done it, and when Mr. Bennett was on the point of being instituted. The hon. Gentleman says his second charge against the Bishop of Bath and Wells is, that the Bishop instituted Mr. Bennett without the proper certificate:—and here I think the hon. Gentleman falls into error in supposing that one of the canons he has quoted, namely, the forty-eighth, has anything to do with this matter. I believe I am beyond all risk of being contradicted by any one acquainted with ecclesiastical law when I state that for a long series of years the thirty-ninth canon has exclusively regulated the institution of clergymen into benefices. The hon. Gentleman thinks the Bishop of Bath and Wells has been guilty of a legal offence in instituting Mr. Bennett without the certificate of the Bishop of London. On that question I meet the hon. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of Bath and Wells received from Mr. Bennett a, full certificate with regard to his life and doctrine, which, if he had refused to entertain, would have entitled Mr. Bennett, or the patron, to prosecute him in the courts, and compel him to grant institution. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Bishop received the ordinary testimonial signed by three incumbents; and he asks who are the incumbents, and seems to suppose I have the testimonial. I have it not, and cannot state the names of the incumbents; but this I can state, that it was the usual testimonial. The hon. Gentleman has misstated the form of the testimonial, that Mr. Bennett had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. The language of the testimonial is, that he had never held, written, nor taught anything contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. I wish to mention this, because it is very difficult to know all that a man has done within three years in his private actions; his teaching is more or less public, and is more properly made the subject of a testimonial. Then, Sir, thus far the Bishop received precisely the ordinary testimonial, so far as the incumbents are concerned, but not the usual testimonial so far as the dismissing Bishop is concerned. The Bishop of London, the hon. Gentleman says, annexed a statement with regard to Mr. Bennett, calling attention to the fact that Mr. Bennett had been dismissed from his diocese, or rather that the Bishop had availed himself of Mr. Bennett's voluntary offer of resignation—on account of unfaithfulness? No; he did not use that word—but because his continuing in the diocese of London would have prejudiced its peace and good order; and he called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to a correspondence in the Times newspaper between himself and Mr. Bennett. The testimonial is the usual testimonial, which compels the Bishop to admit, so far as the incumbents are concerned; but this is an unusual testimonial, having an extraneous comment appended by the Bishop of London. I think the House will agree with me that the question is to ascertain what is the effect—the legal value and effect—of this explanatory note by the Bishop of London—what duty did it impose on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? I have made that my study; and I understand notes of that kind are not unfrequently appended by bishops to the testimonials they sign. It is quite plain that if the meaning of the signature is fixed by law and usage, its legal effect cannot be altered or varied by any gratuitous comment of the bishop. If I or the hon. Member take an oath, it is not in our power to vary the legal effect of it by adding any observations of our own. The meaning of the Bishop of London's signature remained the same in point of law, whatever he appended to it. What, then, is the value of this explanation? The hon. Member says it made it the duty of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to ascertain for himself the doctrine of Mr. Bennett; it made it the duty of the Bishop to satisfy himself with the soundness of Mr. Bennett's doctrine. That is the third head of the charges brought forward by the hon. Member, which I must not anticipate. I want to show that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, so far as the second charge, stands manifestly clear; because the testimonial he received, and which compelled him to institute Mr. Bennett, differed from other testimonials only in the point that the Bishop of London had added an explanation which could have no other effect than to impose on the Bishop of Bath and Wells the duty of examining Mr. Bennett. So far, therefore, the second head could not form a separate head of charge against Mr. Bennett. The certificate from the Bishop of London, the hon. Gentleman admitted, was not necessary; the practice did not require it; the canon did not require it; nothing was wanted but Mr. Bennett's qualification, and the question was, whether upon the qualification the Bishop of Bath and Wells did admit him. Well, then, we come to the third charge—-that the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituted Mr. Bennett without due examination; and I am bound to say, in the sense of the hon. Gentleman, he did institute without due examination, for such a construction as the hon. Gentleman has given to the phrase "due examination" may really suit the House of Commons; but I am confident there is no Gentleman who has ever looked at the legal question who would not at once repudiate it. I see lawyers present who are entirely with the hon. Gentleman on this subject, and I make my appeal with just as much confidence as to those who are in feeling against the Motion. The hon. Gentleman laid down this doctrine, that a Judge—for the bishop acts in the strictest 3ense as a Judge, in admitting presentees—he laid down the doctrine that the examination by this Judge was not to be an examination of such a nature and carried to such an extent as to satisfy him, the Judge, and his conscience, on whom and whose conscience the law laid the burden of decision, but so as to satisfy other individuals to satisfy the public, to satisfy the Member for Cockermouth. I wish I could get the hon. Gentleman to look in cool blood at the consequence—I do not mean to use exaggerated terms—the frightful and odious consequence of such a doctrine of the judicial duty, and such a conception of the judicial character—that the Judge, looking at the evidence prepared in a solemn matter, is not to look at what will satisfy himself and his own conscience, but at what will satisfy the public, and the conscience of the public. I am repeating the words of the hon. Member. If I am not—if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman—if he admits the duty of the Judge is one of solemn responsibility to institute such an examination as shall satisfy and conclude his own judgment and his own conscience before God and man in a matter so serious as this, then we are agreed. Did the Bishop of Bath and Wells do this? I say he did. He did examine Mr. Bennett; he examined him—-not in the Greek Testament, not upon matters of form, not upon matters of the ritual—-he would not say ritual—not upon matters of ecclesiastical history, but he examined Mr. Bennett, not of former or other times, but Mr. Bennett of January last. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, suffering from great illness—from torturing and crushing illness, but in the possession of his powers, and not (as the Secretary for the Colonies had stated) in extreme old age, but perfectly competent to discharge his duties—he seriously and carefully examined Mr. Bennett upon all those points on which he thought an examination was called for—the points in difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome—and not until he had examined Mr. Bennett upon all those points, and not until he was satisfied that Mr. Bennett upon all those points held with the Church of England, did he take the step of granting institution to Mr. Bennett; because, of course, if Mr. Bennett had held the opinions of the Church of Borne with regard to the Thirty-nine Articles, his course was clear—it was his duty to refuse institution. Finding, in his judgment, there was no ground for agreeing with the parishioners of Frome, or the hon. Gentleman, he proceeded to grant it. The Bishop did subject Mr. Bennett to due examination, and I ought to say this—that he did it, not from fear of compulsion by any movement of the parishioners, but before any movement of the discontented clergy or laymen took place at all. It was done by the Bishop because he saw and felt the circumstances of Mr. Bennett's former career were such as to call on him without being urged on by any one, and because he knew well he must take the responsibility of rejecting him. Upon his own responsibility, then, and with his own mouth, he examined Mr. Bennett, and with full satisfaction, on all those points. The hon. Gentleman fairly beats me when he leads this House into pure and direct theology. The hon. Gentleman was extremely ingenious in this process. The hon. Gentleman having quoted, for his own immediate purpose, some proposition or other from Mr. Bennett's writings or sermons on a theological point, forthwith suggests that it is not appropriate in that House to discuss the proposition; but the hon. Gentleman thinks it extremely appropriate in himself to decide and conclude upon the proposition without discussion. The hon. Gentleman made a great point of a passage in which he attributed to Mr. Bennett the proposition that the Bible was a fiction and an absurdity. Now I hold in my hand the pamphlet which contains the passage the hon. Gentleman has quoted; and Mr. Bennett has complained bitterly how altogether misrepresented this passage has been by being wrenched from its context, so that it bears a totally different meaning, so separated, from that which it bears with its context. The hon. Gentleman, however, wants to have it understood by the country—first, that Mr. Bennett has declared the Bible to be a fiction and an absurdity; and, secondly, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, knowing that Mr. Bennett had made this declaration, deemed it a proposition not requiring his judicial and episcopal cognisance. When I turned to the passage, I saw the passage, in my humble opinion, was totally altered by being wrenched, cut, and carved. I could remedy this by reading the passage to the House, but I will not do so. It is really an affecting statement of the most solemn doctrines of religion, which I cannot profane by reading to the House of Commons assembled for the purpose of debate on this question. The hon. Gentleman shows that he is not in the least aware of the common history of the Church of England except during the years in which he has belonged to it. He shows that he is totally unaware of one of the greatest religious controversies of this century. The passage has reference to this question—whether in the work of propagating Christianity, spreading Christianity among those not Christian, the Bible should be used alone. Mr, Bennett says it is a fiction and a delusion to send the Bible alone among persons unacquainted with Christianity for the purpose of making them Christians. Mr. Bennett has never said anything against the use of the Bible by Christians for the edification of their souls. The hon. Gentleman ought to know this, that many years after the foundation of the Bible Society, that institution was opposed by nearly the whole of the Bishops of the Church of England—he doubted if there was more than a single exception—and by the great mass of the clergy, because they contended—whether rightly or wrongly is not now the question—that even among Christians, particularly in foreign lands, the circulation of the Bible alone was not the use of it which our Saviour intended as a means for the propagation of Christianity. Therefore Mr. Bennett, whether right or wrong, held an opinion resting not on any such monstrous proposition as that the Bible was a fiction and an absurdity, but one commonly and most rigidly held by a very large mass of the bishops and clergy of the Church of England, that the Bible was not to be used as the sole means of propagating Christianity.

explained: I did not say Mr. Bennett used those words. I quoted the memorial of the parishioners of Frome, who put that passage before the Bishop. I gave no opinion upon it.

I beg pardon, but the hon. Gentleman forgets he reverted to it in another part of his speech. I wish to be strictly accurate; and certainly the hon. Gentleman imputed either that Mr. Bennett, or the parishioners of Frome under Mr. Bennett's teaching, entertained the belief that the Bible was a fiction and absurdity, or words to that effect. What I want to put to the hon. Gentleman is this: with regard to a common opinion of the great mass of the bishops and clergy, no matter whether right or wrong, could the Bishop rationally hope, in suspending Mr. Bennett, that would be admitted as a valid reason by the courts of law to which the patron or presentee would appeal? I laid it down with emphasis at the commencement of these remarks, that we must be governed by the law, and not by private opinion. If we hold fast that doctrine, I shall not be afraid of any result at which we may arrive. What I am afraid of is, that, as the law represents the spirit of one period, and we represent the spirit of another period, having suffered the laws to continue unadapted to the purposes for which they were originally intended, we shall measure our judgment by our own opinions when called on to consider the conduct of a high judicial public officer, and not by the opinion of the law, by which standard alone he is bound to per- form his duties, and for a departure from which he can only be blameable and liable to punishment. Coming to the second branch of this question—it seems that Mr. Bennett put a particular construction upon the oath of supremacy; and the hon. Gentleman says the construction is contrary to the meaning of that oath, and complains that the Bishop did not on that ground institute judicial proceedings against Mr. Bennett, or stay his institution. Now, in the first place, it was obvious that the Bishop himself had a different opinion of the matter from the hon. Gentleman, for he told the parishioners that he had given his best attention to the whole subject, and the manifest inference thence was, that, as to the oath of supremacy, his construction concurred with that of Mr. Bennett, since, having examined Mr. Bennett's opinions, he thought fit to institute him. It may he urged, perhaps, that the Bishop himself was wrong herein; but, if so, is that just matter of charge against him? If the law is not so clear but that bishops were liable to misconstrue it, let the law he made more clear; but, meanwhile, let it not be made matter of accusation against them, that they hold. opinions on particular doctrines differing from those of individual Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman ought to recollect this question is one which, in all seriousness and in all fairness, has been much debated and discussed in this House. I have heard the noble Lord the Member for the City of London give one construction, and other Members give other constructions of the oath of supremacy; and the hon. Gentleman must know that two Peers are precluded from taking their seats in this House because it is impossible to fix a clear and certain meaning to it, and they give so much weight to their scruples of conscience that they will not run the risk of violating them. But that is not what the hon. Gentleman says. If what he says be true, that the construction put on the oath of supremacy by Mr. Bennett is such as to constitute a specific offence, that Mr. Bennett is thereby guilty of false doctrine, why not try the question in the courts now? Why not raise the legal question? There is no limitation of two years to apply here. If I understood the hon. Gentleman, and if my memory serves me correctly, this offence was committed the latter end of 1850. Why not try that offence? Has the opinion of Dr. Twiss been taken on the point? Did he say any offence was committed by that construction? If he did not say so, why make it part of the charge against the Bishop of Bath and Wells? If he did say so, why not institute proceedings thereon against Mr. Bennett in the Ecclesiastical Court? How can the hon. Gentleman escape from that dilemma? What I say is this. The Bishop has been acting all along, not upon the opinions of the hon. Gentleman, or the private opinions of any one, but upon grounds strictly judicial; considering what the law is, and considering, as he is bound to consider, what are the grounds of objection, and if stated in the Court of Queen's Bench, and such courts as are open for further appeal, whether the objections would warrant him in staying proceedings. It was not for the Bishop, from any fear of popular clamour, from any fear of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, to refuse to Mr. Bennett that which had been given him, though there was a popular case against him, which might draw forth a few rounds of cheers from the House of Commons, ill-informed of the particulars of the case. That, as it appears to me, is the substance of the case of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in answer to these three charges. I have shown you on the first that twenty-six days elapsed between the presentation and the institution of Mr. Bennett, and if the recusant parishioners had minded to stay these proceedings, all they had to do was to have a caveat drawn in the course of a few hours, and lodged in the Bishop's Court, which would have enabled the Bishop to hold his hand. Without that caveat the Bishop was not able to hold his hand, and would subject himself to a very heavy legal consequences if he held his hand; and yet the hon. Member says your Protestantism will become a delusion and your loyalty a sham if you do not vote by implication a vote of censure upon a Judge for doing his duty towards an unpopular man under unpopular circumstances. As to the second charge, I have shown you that the evidence was precisely that which bishops take in every other case, and in no respect fell short of it. I have shown you that the comment by the Bishop of London had merely the effect to draw special attention to Mr. Bennett's doctrine, and make it the duty of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to inquire. When I come to the third point, I have shown you that, without waiting for any any such representation, the Bishop had already inquired, whether rightly or wrongly, had made up his mind that Mr. Bennett could not he convicted of false doctrine under the laws of the Church of England—under the law^* as they stand—and, therefore, it was his duty neither to delay or refuse justice demanded at his hands. And, lastly, I have shown you that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells is borne out by the conduct of others; that the declaration with regard to the Oath of Supremacy is signed by Mr. Bennett, in a printed paper, and that it does not require any one to go to the Bishop of Bath and Wells to try that question. Even now two years have not elapsed, and there is a perfectly legal remedy if they choose to try it. They did not choose to subject themselves to the responsibilities of legal process, but kindly asked the Bishop of Bath and Wells to do it for them, not in furtherance of his own opinions, but in furtherance of their opinions, from which he entirely differed. That I imagine to be the case of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. If it be found, when taken into a court of justice, that Mr. Bennett's doctrine is contrary to the Church of England, then the case against the Bishop of Bath and Wells will be changed, because he said, and does say, he examined into the doctrine and the questions contested between the Churches of England and Rome, and he found the doctrine of Mr. Bennett conformable to the Church of England. If the teaching of Mr. Bennett is found to be conformable to the Church of Rome, I fully grant there will be something like a presumptive case against the Bishop; but of such a case at present there is not the slightest shadow. I now come to the question, what are we to do with the Motion now before the House? It is not my duty to suggest any course to the House. I can understand why the Government wished to hear what I had to say on the part of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but I shall now expect to hear from them what course they intend to take. I will not presume to submit any Motion to the House; but I will say a few words on the subject of the Motion itself. I confess I have great objections to the Motion as it stands, to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome. Those words are large and vague; the institution is the act of the Bishop, and any Member who votes for the Motion as it stands commits himself to the principle that prima facie a case has been made out against the Bishop of Bath and Wells—that he but not acted accerding to the letter and the spirit of the law. Nothing can induce me to give such a vote, because a vote more contrary to fairness, truth, and justice, has never been given by any Member of this House. The hon. Gentleman anticipates that it will be urged that the inquiry cannot go on; and he refers to the objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). I was not aware before that the hon. Member for Cockermouth was willing to place himself in the same boat as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. I do not think inquiry can take place this Session. My objection, however, is to inquiry sim pliciter, into the circumstances attending the institution of Mr. Bennett into the vicarage of Frome. I say, if we have inquiry we ought to have an inquiry not into the circumstances connected with the vicarage of Frome, but into the really great and important subject of the state, and spirit, and enactments of those laws, which seemed to have been studiously framed by a long succession of generations of legislators to discourage bishops—to render it almost impossible for bishops to do that which you find fault with the Bishop of Bath, and Wells for not doing. If you like to inquire into the subject of ecclesiastical appointments, those to bishoprics included, with a view, among other things, to facilitate well-grounded objections to such appointments, if you will patiently and impartially investigate the state of the law on these points, so as to bring the inquiry to a well-considered conclusion, you will indeed confer one of the greatest possible services on the country, and materially contribute to the stability of the Church of England. I am not sure that bishoprics should not be included in the inquiry, where the facilities of objection are less. I admit there is not sufficient scope to parishioners having canonical objections to pastors placed over them. I do not want to open the door to vexatious objections;—I think we ought resolutely to set our faces against them;—but so far as canonical objections are concerned, they ought not to be left to be thrown into the lap of the bishop, and to be maintained on his responsibility. Whether that inquiry should be made by a Commission or by a Committee, is another question. If we are to have immediate inquiry, it cannot be done by a Committee at this late period of the Session; because, although the hon. Gentleman will only require ten days to bring forward his witnesses, other Gentlemen, who take different views, will wish to bring forward other witnesses. I wish for a thorough investigation into the state of the ecclesiastical law and the canonical method of dealing with objections to appointments; and if Her Majesty's Government are disposed to undertake that inquiry, I am quite satisfied it will be giving a useful turn to the discussion raised by the hon. Gentleman. If the Government for that purpose moves the appointment of a Commission or of a Committee, I shall be prepared to give it every favourable consideration; but as to the Motion now made for the purpose of holding up to implied censure a high judicial officer in the Church—one who has done his duty to the utmost—against such a Committee I have the gravest objections, because I think it not a straightforward but a dark implication, by which you cast censure on a man who has never disgraced the high position he holds, and who, instead of deserving blame in this matter, deserves your commendation.

The hon. Member for Cockermouth, who has brought this subject forward, referred in the course of his opening speech to some language which I held when he first brought this subject before the House; and, although it is not my intention now to detain the House by going into the subject at any length, I should, in consequence of that reference, have risen when he sat down to state—which I am now prepared to do distinctly—the feeling I entertain upon the specific Motion which he has proposed to the House, had it not been for the announcement made some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that whenever the subject was again brought before the House he should feel it his duty to take that opportunity to vindicate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The right hon. Gentleman has done so with his usual ability; and he certainly has gone very far to justify the course which the Bishop of Bath and Wells took in this case, acting, as he has very truly said, judicially, and bound judicially to decide—ay or no—whether, after the patron of this living had presented Mr. Bennett to it, he would have been justified in refusing to institute that gentleman. The manner in which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) has twice brought this subject before the House, and the deep attention the House has on both occasions paid to it, is, I think, a proof how strongly the feelings of the people of this country, and of this House as representing those feelings, are excited by those unhappy dissensions which unfortunately exist in the Church of England, and to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) has referred with painful truth, when he says the Church is now rent and torn by these unhappy dissensions. And I am sorry to say that we must in a great degree trace those unhappy dissensions to that portion of the clergy of the Church of England who have taken that line of conduct which Mr. Bennett has pursued: a line which in his case has led to virtual expulsion from one diocese, and which it is impossible to deny has led to most grave and serious questions whether clergymen conducting themselves as he has unhappily done, can be considered as being really and truly sincere ministers of the Church of England. Sir, I use the expression with the most extreme grief. I believe that in many respects—in many most essential respects—there never was a more exemplary parochial minister than Mr. Bennett. It would be injustice to deny that—I am quite willing to admit that it is so. But we must not look only to those parochial ministrations. The same thing may unquestionably be said of a very large portion of the priests of the Romish Church. They are men of the most exemplary lives. But I know no more dangerous error than to confound personal piety, personal virtue, or the exemplary discharge of ministrations, with the profession and maintenance of those vital principles and doctrines which form the great line of demarcation between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches. No man can be ignorant of, no man can shut his eyes to, the unhappy dissensions that have arisen in our Church. It is not for mo to say that a large portion of those gentlemen who, like Mr. Bennett, have been remarkable for what has been called by a high authority "their histrionic love of form," and for constantly taking a line as close as they possibly can to Romanism while keeping within the forms of the Church of England—I do not mean to say that they may not be exemplary men, and animated by most sincere and conscientious feelings; but I do say that we cannot shut our eyes to the unhappy effects that have resulted from that course of conduct. We see the line of distinction between the Protestant faith and the doctrines of the Romish Church drawn finer and finer by this conduct. We see numbers of our fellow Protestants first drawn away from their own simple Protestant faith into these extremes, and finally led away into the Church of Rome. Looking at these unquestionable facts—looking at the unhappy results which have taken place in our own Church—I cannot but regard it as a great misfortune that any patron of a living in the Church of England should have been led by feelings—conscientious, I have no doubt, but, in my humble judgment, most injudicious—to give a living so important as that of Frome to a person so situated as Mr. Bennett. This is my conscientious opinion, and I will not, shrink from the avowal of it. To this extent I go with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman). I cannot blame him for bringing these remarkable facts before the House of Commons. But neverthless I so far agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that I seriously doubt how far the House of Commons is a proper arena for such discussions. But of this I feel sure, that it is only under remarkable circumstances, it is only at a moment when the public mind is strongly excited by such circumstances as these, that it can be justifiable to make the House of Commons an arena for such discussions. The importance of them cannot be overrated; the anxiety of the public mind cannot be overrated; nevertheless, it is a grave and serious question whether such topics can be with advantage discussed in Parliament, The hon. Member for Cockermouth thought it his duty to bring this matter before the House on a former occasion. He then adverted in terms of strong censure to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells in having instituted Mr. Bennett to the living of Frome under all the circumstances that had occurred. On the other branch of the subject, he adverted to the allegations which he made against Mr. Bennett's conduct at Kissingen; and upon a subsequent occasion he alluded to another remarkable fact, that Mr. Bennett's name had appeared as a convert to the Church of Rome in a book of recognised authority in that Church, Battersby's Catholic Directory. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to my having, on the occasion of the last debate, stated my strong opinion that a subject of this kind, once raised, must be dealt with, and that an inquiry of the nature proposed ought to take place. That opinion in substance I expressed; and from that opinion I have no opinion whatever to recede. The Government on that occasion undertook to institute an inquiry; and the hon. Gentleman has rather made it a matter of charge against the Government—at least I understood him to say—that we had not given the inquiry we promised, and had kept him waiting four weeks before we gave an answer on the subject of that inquiry. In fact, if he did not directly charge it against us, I inferred from what he said, both on this and on the former evening, that he thought the Government had not redeemed the pledge they had given. Now, as I was one of those who were willing to give that pledge, as far as it went, I must beg distinctly to express my opinion that we are not open to this imputation. I wish to say distinctly for the Government—every Member of it will support me in saying so—and I might also appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General—whether we did not exhaust every means in our power in endeavouring to ascertain to what extent we could legally institute an inquiry. The first step we took was to draw up questions which, in our judgment, embraced the whole matter at issue. We submitted those questions to the law officers of the Crown. We received from them the most distinct opinion that, in the facts of the institution of Mr. Bennett by the Bishop of Bath and Wells there was no irregularity; that with regard to the transactions at Kissengen, as they had taken place in a foreign land, no legal inquiry—I believe I am right in saying, no inquiry, even by the Bishop—Could take place; and that, in fact, as the matter stood, there was no way in which the Government could legally recommend or point out how an inquiry could take place. The questions which we put to the law officers embraced the whole subject; and the answers of the law officers were marked with that ability which might be expected. Still the Government could not rest content with those answers; and this is the reason why the time elapsed of which the hon. Gentleman has complained. A second time we submitted questions—questions of a more comprehensive character—to the law officers of the Crown; and upon the fullest inquiry—after the questions we first put had been reconsidered, after they had been made more wide and comprehensive than they were at first—we returned to the same conclusion—a conclusion announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House—that there was no legal mode by which the circumstances, as they stood, could be made the subject of direct and immediate inquiry; but that, if there were legal modes of instituting that inquiry (because we were not conversant, of course, with all the circumstances), that legal mode would be open to the parishioners under the Church Discipline Act. I believe I am right in stating the facts; and I wish to make it distinctly known to the hon. Gentleman and the House that there was no unwillingness on the part of the Government; that we addressed to the inquiry the most anxious attention; that the lapse of time was occasioned by our repeated references to the law officers; and that the result of our consideration was, that there was no legal mode in which the inquiry could be made. After this explanation I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that in a matter of this kind, involving points of law of the greatest delicacy, difficulty, and importance, we as a Government had no power to institute proceedings and inquiries; we could only proceed in a legal manner, and we found that there was no legal manner in which those inquiries could be made. Then I come to the transaction at Kissengen, and to the insertion of the name to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The latter is a question of fact. It is undoubtedly an extraordinary fact, a fact calculated to create great anxiety and suspicion—nevertheless it is a fact that, if you turn to the indicated page of Battersby's Catholic Directory, there you find the name of Mr. Bennett as a convert to the Romish Church; and then that that gentleman should be represented as attending at the Roman Catholic chapel at Kissengen, I confess it does appear to me that there are questions for the Bishop to inquire into, but it is not one into which the Government could institute an inquiry. It is a matter now of public notoriety. I may say the same thing as to the transaction at Kissengen. When the hon. Gentleman first brought this subject before the House, I expressed a strong opinion with regard to the conduct of Mr. Bennett. I retain that opinion now; and I listened with astonishment, I confess, this evening to the language held by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. When alluding to the transactions at Kissengen, the allegation is that a clergyman of the Church of England passes many weeks at a place where there is an English clergyman, where there is an English church, where there is an English congregation, and that he never goes near it. I say it is a subject to excite the greatest anxiety, and to inspire the deepest regret, that, whether he was conscientiously right or wrong, a clergyman so conducting himself should now be at the head of a most important parish in the Church of England. I cannot conceal my astonishment when I heard the right hon. Gentleman, vindicate—I was going to say, this conduct; and if he did not vindicate it, he said this—that a clergyman, acting as a chaplain, and his family, formed a congregation—

No; J. did not say that; not his family.

I understood my right hon. Friend to say—a chaplain with the family—not his family—but the family to which be was attached, formed a congregation. If my right hon. Friend meant anything by that, I presume he meant that the Rev. Mr. Bennett was in propriety, as a minister of the Church, exempted from attending the Protestant worship of our own Church in the place where he was, because he was acting as the chaplain of a family. And what was the family? Why, the family was Sir John Harrington's—the churchwarden of the rev. gentleman at St. Paul's, Knights-bridge—a gentleman who distinguished himself, perhaps with more zeal than discretion, in the correspondence connected with Mr. Bennett's dismissal from that church. I must protest, as far as my opinion goes, against the propriety of any chaplain so situate being thereby exempted, in foro conscientiw, from attending the ministrations of his own Church, which were to be had at the place where he then resided, on such a plea. These, I again say, are matters of public notoriety; they must be known to the Bishop of the diocese where Frome is situate; and I can hardly believe that they have gone up to this time without inquiry by that Bishop. It seems to me that they are matters into which any bishop in this country would be bound to call for inquiry. I have never heard anything of the Bishop of Bath and Wells inconsistent with his character as a prelate; and as a bishop holding a high office in our Church, I think it hardly possible that he has not already inquired into these remarkable allegations. If he has not done so, I cannot but believe that be will feel it his duty shortly to institute such an inquiry. Here, again, I think the hon. Gentleman will feel that we as a Government have no power to direct the proceedings of the Bishop, and to compel him to institute an inquiry. Then I am to consider what is the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It is, "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome." I have made no concealment of the opinions I entertain on this subject. As a sincere member of the Church of England, I have stated frankly to the House the opinion I entertain on these unhappy differences. I. have stated what I believe to be the cause of the difficulties in which we are involved; and I have stated without reservation my opinion of the clergyman whose conduct is now in question. I come then to the question whether, after the inquiries we have made into the state of the law, and into the power of proceeding and instituting legal inquiries, whether or not I can, even with these strong views on my own part, consent to making the judicial conduct of a bishop of the Church of England the subject of an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons. Whatever the views of hon. Gentlemen may he as to the presentation of Mr. Bennett to this living, as to the conduct of the Bishop in instituting him, or as to the general merits of Mr. Bennett as a clergyman, I really cannot bring myself to believe that any large number of Gentlemen in this House will think that a Committee of the House of Commons is a proper tribunal to enter upon the trial of a bishop of the Church of England for his official conduct in the discharge of his ministerial duty. The law may be defective. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr, Gladstone), at the close of his speech, threw out some suggestions which may be well worthy our consideration. It may be a question whether parishioners situate as were the parishioners of Frome, ought to be left without a more ready and easy remedy than they had. That may be a great question. I am not sure whether the circumstances every day passing around us do not tend to make it more and more a serious question, whether the state of the law in this respect ought not to become a subject of inquiry. But whatever may be the risk—though under such circumstances I cannot believe there is any risk—having honestly and distinctly avowed my opinion on the subject—1 must say that I never felt a deeper conviction, a stronger opinion, than that we should be taking a course unworthy of the House of Commons, and most dangerous as a precedent, were we to make the House of Commons a tribunal for bringing to trial a bishop in respect of the discharge of his ministerial duties.

begged to say, in explanation, that he never meant to vindicate the conduct of Mr. Bennett at Kissengen; and he wished to add that the Bishop of Bath and Wells never became acquainted with the proceedings at Kissengen till long after the institution of Mr. Bennett. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He presumed, by the noise that was made, that some hon. Member took upon himself to doubt his assertion, and he trusted that, whoever he was, he would rise by and by and explain the reasons for his doubts.

believed that the question now before the House was a grave constitutional question. It was because he felt most deeply the vast importance of the general subject, and the mode in which the feelings of the people of England had been justly excited upon it, that he was the more jealous of being led away into any departure from the strict constitutional mode of dealing with it. He said, the feelings of the people of England were justly excited—for what had occurred? Those who had sworn to be the pastors of our Church had been found to have availed themselves of their high position to corrupt the principles of the members of that Church. In one case, in particular, the clergyman had acted with such baseness as to have gone over to the Church of Rome on the very Sunday after he had performed the morning service in a Protestant church, taking with him the two children of the organist, who had been intrusted to his care. He had heard of other cases equal to this in baseness. The unfortunate man who had taken the lead, in this secession to the Church of Rome, commenced by writing a work by which he taught that a person might hold all the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and yet continue to hold preferment in the Church of England. That tract, which had led to so much of this miserable hypocrisy, he should be as ready to denounce as he should be to denounce the conduct of those who had pursued this course, or adopted any portion of the Articles or Liturgy in what they called a non-natural sense. Unfortunately, the adoption of the non-natural sense was not confined to one side. He was afraid, amongst the various divisions which had disturbed the Church, others might have taken a mode of expounding her doctrines or liturgy in a manner which they considered more wide and liberal than had hitherto been the case; and that, as on the one side the non-natural sense might lead to Rome, so the other, by a natural declension, might lead to another phase of the religious world. He respected those men who avowed their principles at once, and did not wait to mislead others when they had changed their own sentiments; and he could admire the Hon. Baptist Noel for leaving the Church, when he considered the opinions he held to be inconsistent with the natural sense of her Liturgy, much more than the conduct of those who, holding with him, had held preferment in the Church, whilst their doctrines were opposed to the Liturgy and Articles which they were sworn to maintain. He objected to all kinds of non-natural interpretation. Every clergyman was bound, when he gave his unfeigned assent and consent to everything in the Book of Common Prayer, to take every word in its natural, straightforward, and legitimate meaning, according to the mode in which it had been recognised in the Church of England from the time it was adopted in the Book of Common Prayer. But feeling that most deeply, and feeling that our safeguards were not adequate to the purposes for which they were required, he was confident they would not advance the cause of the reform of the ecclesiastical law by taking up these isolated cases, by making martyrs of individuals, by holding them up to so much public observation, and still less by making a party matter of Church discipline—a question which ought to involve the most deep, and serious, and grave considerations, with a view to a remedy which might satisfy the minds of all thinking members of the Reformed and Protestant branch of the Church. With regard to the Motion before the House, how did the matter stand? On the former occasion the House was asked to address Her Majesty, praying Her to issue a Commission to inquire into this subject. Every one was aware that an inquiry by the Crown must be by Commission, and every lawyer in the House knew that it was impossible to issue a Commission to ascertain whether a bishop had or had not transgressed the law—that such a Commission was precisely such a Commission as was condemned by the Bill of Rights. But now the question took another shape, and the House was asked to institute an inquiry. But surely the principle of the objection was the same. The principle was this—not to inquire into anything behind a man's back, or bring charges against him, except for the sole purpose of bringing him to trial, because otherwise a stigma might be left upon him without his having had the opportunity to controvert or meet the charge. An inquiry might be instituted before a Committee, with a view to impeachment;—but he did not understand that the hon. Member for Cockermouth intended to go to that extent. He did not dispute the power of the House of Commons, nor did he dispute that it was the grand inquest of the nation; but if so, it behoved the House to act with a judicial mind, with a strictly legal form of inquiry, and not to come to a hasty or ill-considered resolution. He was glad that the former resolution was not agreed to. He was glad also that the Government undertook to make the inquiry, the result of which had been that there was no possible mode of taking steps which could alter the position of Mr. Bennett as instituted at Frome. But the question before the House was this: had the Bishop of Bath and Wells, according to the facts stated by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, been guilty of such a breach of the law that it was absolutely necessary for the House to inquire into his conduct in instituting Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome? He was bound to say, having listened most patiently to the statement of the hon. Member, that he had not made out the slightest infringement of the law on the part of the bishop even on his own data. He did not mean to go into the question as to whether the law should be altered; but he contended that as the law now stood there were no legal means of introducing such an inquiry as could lead to a satisfactory result upon the question of whether or not Mr. Bennett was a sound member of the Church of England. He thought the hon. Member for the University of Oxford had somewhat understated the case of the Bishop. The Bishop was in this position. The law watched most jealously over the rights of patrons. And why? Not merely because the Bishop was in a judicial position, but because he was entitled to present in the event of a lapse if the living should not be filled up within six months; and the civil tribunals, therefore, would not spare him on a quareimpedit. The point on which the Bishop's case rested was this. Formerly Bishops had two months allowed to inquire into the fitness of the clerk—that was a large portion of the six months—but according to the canons as they now stood, the Bishop had only twenty-eight days allowed for inquiry, and after that time he might be proceeded against by the patron for the non-institution of the clerk. Now what were the facts in this case? The Bishop of Bath and Wells did not institute until the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh day after the presentation—just within the time when he was bound to finish the inquiry. Then what became of the charge of indecent haste? If the Bishop waited until the last day but one in which, by law, he could delay the institution of the clerk, he would ask the House if there was any ground for the charge of wilful haste or wilful anxiety to stop inquiry, by refusing to enter into the question with the parishioners, and then preventing them from entering their caveat? So strict was the law with regard to what a bishop might or might not do in refusing to institute a clerk, that a case had been decided on this point, in which the Bishop of Peterborough was the defendant. The Bishop pleaded that he had asked for the letters of orders, that he had asked for the testimonials, and the clerk had them not; that he gave the clerk a week to bring them, and that he brought them not; and that on his not bringing them he instituted another clerk. By the canon law the Bishop was bound to have the letters of orders and the testimonials. The Court of Common Law said, "We know nothing of that; you might have put the clerk on oath whether he had the letters; but we do hold you were bound to institute;" and the Bishop had to pay the costs of the proceeding. This showed the extreme jealousy of the courts in these matters. The Bishop who refused a clerk was bound to have such a ground of refusal as he could prove to the satisfaction of a jury; and if he failed in making out that proof, he was mulcted in costs. And what must the defect be? It must be a defect in learning, in morals, or in doctrine. He would ask the House if any case had been brought before the Bishop of Bath and Wells in respect of Mr. Bennett which he could establish in a court of law as a defence to a quare impedit; and that was the question before the House. The Bishop had no materials before him. Had the hon. Member for Cockermouth furnished any materials which would have satisfied the requisition of the law, and proved the disqualification of the party? Let it be remembered also that the Bishop had not the choice whether he would go to a jury or not. Although it was possible a jury might be got to condemn some of the doctrines stated, yet the patron might proceed in the Ecclesiastical Court, and then the question was, what would the Ecclesiastical Court say with regard to these reasons? Further than that, the' Judge, as a matter of law, would not allow the jury to wander away from the causes that would be sufficient to prevent institution, and those causes ought to be such as would justify deprivation. The Kissengen part of the case must be put out of the question; because the Bishop would not have been allowed to prove that in his defence, even if he had known of it; but the hon. Member for Cockermouth did not even aver that the Bishop was aware of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford denied that the Bishop had any knowledge of the matter; and he (Sir W. Page Wood) confessed that he himself never heard of it until it was mentioned by the hon. Member. That point must, therefore, be entirely put out of consideration. The next point was, that Mr. Bennett had been obliged to give up his church in the diocese of London. But that would be no answer to a quare impedit If the Bishop of London had deprived Mr. Bennett, that would have been a case to go before a jury. But the fact was otherwise; Mr. Bennett had resigned the living at the Bishop's request, and had not been deprived. The next point was, the quotation from Mr. Bennett's book. Standing alone it appeared to him to be a most objectionable passage; but he could easily understand that the context might have explained away a great deal of it. According to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, the quotation stated, but in objectionable language, that Mr. Bennett did not like to circulate the Bible alone of itself; it, perhaps, might have suggested that he wished it to be circulated with the Prayer Book. But no one could urge that as a defence on a quare impedit for not instituting. Then came the question about the testimonials. The question first raised was, that the Bishop ought to have had the testimonials, and ought to have examined them. Now Mr. Bennett produced his testimonials, signed by three clerks, and countersigned by the Bishop of London. But it was said there was a note from the Bishop of London which ought to have put the Bishop of Bath and Wells on his guard. He granted this. But it seemed that the Bishop did inquire into the matter. Now, what difference could this letter have made to the Bishop of Bath and Wells if a quare impedit had been brought against him, or if any other proceeding had been taken? The Court would not have looked at the letter of the Bishop of London as a defence to an actio of quare impedit, or a duplex querela. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful of the Bishop of London, but he (Sir W. P. Wood) must say that he did not approve of the practice of writing private letters on these subjects. He believed that the object of the Bishop's signature was to testify that these three clergymen held office in his diocese; but he thought if the Bishop wished to make any observations he had better have placed them at the foot of the instrument. But even if that had been the case, the Court could not have looked at the note for the purpose of saying that the Bishop ought not to institute Mr. Bennett because the Bishop of London was not satisfied. The hon. Member for Cockermouth said the Bishop should have examined Mr. Bennett. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said the Bishop did examine him; and the right hon. Gentleman having made that assertion on his personal knowledge, the House was bound to consider there had been an examination. The Bishop could only take the examination offered. He could not call witnesses to contradict Mr. Bennett. All he could do was to put Mr. Bennett's book into his hand and say, "Do you admit you wrote that book? I find such and such statements in that book. I consider them suspicious. I wish to have a full explanation of your view on the subject." That course could be pursued to a great length, and had been pursued to a great length in one case;—and what was the result? Was there any temptation to any other Bishop to pursue the same course? Was it to be supposed that the Privy Council would take a less wide view of the one case than they had done of the other; and might they not have condemned the Bishop in the costs, which costs would probably have amounted to 3,000l.; for that, as they were aware, was the result of the proceedings in the Bishop of Exeter's case? If Mr. Bennett, when examined by the Bishop, had answered that he was an attached and sincere member of the Church of England, and explained away the documents complained of in that sense, the Bishop would have had no alternative but to institute him. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had completely misunderstood the case tried before Lord Ellen-borough from beginning to end, and had unwittingly given a reverse interpretation of the case. Povah's case was the case of the licensing of a preacher, in which the words of the Act were entirely different from the words of the canon; and Lord Ellenborough in his judgment proceeded on that distinction. The words of the Act of Uniformity as to licensing were, that he must be "approved by the bishop;" but there were no such words in the canon or in the law with reference to institution to a benefice. It was discretionary with the bishop whether he would license the preacher or not; and accordingly in that case the Bishop of London put in an affidavit, and said, "I examined the party, and on my conscience could not approve him;" and that was held a sufficient answer. But would that be any sufficient answer to a quare impedit? Lord Ellenborough said—

"The distinction between that case and the case of a clerk is this, that in the institution of a clerk the bishop has only to follow the direction of the canon—he has no discretion whatever, but is bound by the law to institute or to make good by testimony any reason he gives for not instituting a clerk—and that is a totally different case from the present."

Lord Ellenborough did not say that the bishop was not to examine, but that when he had examined and got the answers, he could not stir a step, unless he had testimony to prove the clerk's schismatical or heretical opinions. The position of the bishop was extremely painful. It was laid down by Hobart, that if a bishop refused to present for light reasons, the law presumed he wished to present by lapse, and he said—

"The best advice I can give a bishop is this—to stand perfectly quiet, and take no part either the one way or the other; but simply to institute the party who is presented to him, unless on examination he find cause to which he can make answer in a quare impedit"

Now, what would have been the position of the Bishop of Bath and Wells if he had attended to the letter of the parishioners of Frome? He could not have said to them, "Enter a caveat." It would not have been consistent with his judicial position, nor with his duties to the par- ties, to instigate litigation, or to tell them the course they were to adopt. He could do nothing but say that it was an informal document, and that he could not attend to it. If they had entered a caveat, at first, the Bishop's course would have been clear. Was it reasonable to expect the Bishop to refuse to institute on no further information than was afforded by the parishioners? Up to this moment, no materials had been produced which would satisfy a Court that Mr. Bennett was unfit to be instituted. The Bishop's position was a painful one; but he maintained that he could not, consistently with his duty, have done anything else than what he did do. If, then, that was the state of things, he was glad to be delivered from the consideration of Mr. Bennett's case. He had formed his own opinion upon that case, and he admitted that it was a considerable grievance that in the case of a clergyman lying under such suspicion as Mr. Bennett did, from the things which were said to have occurred abroad, and from admitted circumstances, which had not been cited there—he admitted, he said, that it was a grave thing that, under the existing state of the law, there was no power on the part of a bishop to investigate such matters at a moderate cost; and he confessed he looked to a reform of the law of the Ecclesiastical Courts in that respect both in principle and practice; for the present House of Commons, having shown itself so anxious about the reform of the Court of Chancery, he felt certain that the next House of Commons would not allow the ecclesiastical courts to pass unscathed. The present debate might tend to promote that result, and, if so, it would be a useful result; and, perhaps, it was the only result it would have. He could not quite agree with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), when he said that this was a proper time to introduce this discussion, because there was a strong feeling in the public mind respecting it. He (Sir W. P. Wood) sympathised with those who had strong feelings on this subject, and it was because he did so, that he said that they ought not to take one step in the matter beyond the limits of legitimate inquiry. He believed that in a case which rested upon such weak grounds, an inquiry such as was proposed could lead to no desirable results, further than that he thought they would find it to be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution to grant a Committee of Inquiry where no pledge was given that that inquiry should be carried forward to a proper issue. He begged to thank the House for the attention with which they had listened to him upon a subject in which he felt so deep an interest that he had felt constrained to offer some remarks upon it.

said, that, having the honour to represent the borough of Frome, he was anxious to address a few words to the House upon this most painful question. He could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) had been a little more charitable to the persons who signed the protest against their rector, Mr. Bennett; for, if he mistook not, the right hon. Gentleman did not think it out of place to insinuate that they were actuated by unworthy and selfish motives. Now, he (Colonel Boyle) was acquainted with almost every one of the fifty persons who had signed that protest, and he believed that not one of them had been actuated by the motives which the right hon. Gentleman had attributed to them. He had heard it said that one of the protesters had applied for the living, and being disappointed in not getting it, had therefore protested against the appointment of Mr. Bennett. Now he knew not to whom the right hon. Gentleman alluded—he knew not whether it was true or false—it was not unlikely that there was a party in the town of Frome connected with a clergyman living in the neighbourhood, a most respectable party in that town, a family which had long exercised a great and deserved influence there, who might have applied to the noble patroness in favour of a very deserving clergyman—probably they did apply to the noble patroness, and were refused; but even if they did so, he would venture to say that it was not that circumstance which had induced them to sign the protest, and that they were not more actuated by unworthy motives in signing that protest, than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) himself was actuated by unworthy motives in appearing in that House as the advocate of Mr. Bennett. With regard to the popularity of Mr. Bennett's doctrines in the town of Frome, he (Colonel Boyle) had received a letter from a gentleman residing there, which stated that he did not believe there was any change in the feeling amongst the inhabitants relating to the appointment of Mr. Bennett, unless it was a more decided resolve on the part of the intelligent, and those representing the property of the town, to discountenance both Mr. Bennett and his doctrines; that there was, in fact, but one feeling of disappointment and regret expressed throughout the circle of the writer's acquaintance, with the exception of one of the churchwardens; that the vicar's churchwarden had resigned, and left the church; that it was only by the greatest efforts that a successor had been found; that many persons had been solicited, who refused, and at length they had been driven to appoint the clerk of the board of guardians to the office; that the churchwarden to whom Mr. Gladstone alluded was the chairman of the board of guardians; and it might, therefore, be easily understood how it was that the clerk to the board was induced to become the vicar's churchwarden. He (Colonel Boyle) had other evidence bearing upon the same point; but he felt that, after all, the question of popularity was not the sole question; and that, even if the rev. gentleman were popular, but all the while unsound in his doctrines, the mischief which was likely to accrue from the appointment of Mr. Bennett would be all the greater and more extensive. One word as to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Knowing what had been the state of his health for some time past, he (Colonel Boyle) wished to speak with forbearance and charity concerning him; but in justice to his constituents, he must state that they had no confidence in an appeal to this right rev. Prelate. The parishioners of Frome remembered that when Dr. Bagot was Bishop of Oxford, Ward and Newman found shelter and encouragement; they remembered also, that within the last few years a rev. gentleman who had either been refused a license in the diocese of Ripon, or, having held preferment there, was forced to leave, in consequence of what occurred at St. Saviour's in Leeds, found refuge in the diocese of Bath and Wells; was licensed to a curacy at Wells in the neighbourhood of Frome; remained there nearly two years, and then rewarded the confidence reposed in him by the right rev. Prelate, by going over to Rome. What confidence could his constituents, the parishioners of Frome, have in an appeal to such a tribunal as this? and then as to the expense, was it not well known that in the Gorham case, it cost the winning party thousands? He could not resume his seat without expressing to his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth the thanks of the inhabitants of Frome, for the able, temperate, and moderate manner in which he had introduced this question to the House. He hoped that in the course of the next Session something might be done to alter the Church Discipline Act; and he also hoped Mr. Bennett would feel it incumbent upon him to restore peace to the town by resigning the living.

wished to justify himself with regard to the proceedings which had taken place respecting the petition presented from Frome. The address in reply had been drawn up by Mr. Cruttwell from first to last—one of Mr. Bennett's uncompromising foes. That gentleman stated—

"That the churchwardens and other persons canvassed for and obtained signatures to the address at tables placed for the purpose within the church itself when it was open for divine service; that it was signed by many persons who did not belong to the congregation, nor even to the parish, nor even to the diocese; that it was signed by little boys and little girls, and by persons who did not know what they were signing; that it purported to be signed by persons whose names were affixed without their knowledge; and, lastly, that it was taken to public-houses, where signatures were obtained thereto. The mode in which the address was got up would have disgraced the proceedings at a contested election. It carries no weight with it here, where these things are known, but it may be otherwise at a distance. I pledge myself to prove all this, and more, if the signatures be produced."

Now, he had counted the number of signatures, and had looked at them all particularly, and he would undertake to say that they were not the signatures of boys and girls, but of persons accustomed to write their names in ordinary running-hand. But Mr. Miller, the churchwarden, gave a rejoinder to Mr. Cruttwell, and stated that—

"The whole proceedings were honest and open as the day; and that all the signatures were obtained by the churchwardens and five of the congregation, who were prepared to substantiate all he (Mr. Miller) stated. He declined submitting them to Mr. Bennett's opponents, not from the slightest fear of the result, but to shield the persons who had signed from the persecution that would certainly follow."

Mr. Cruttwell had since published a statement, in which he said—

"He was glad to have the opportunity of disclaiming any participation in Mr. Horsman's proceedings in the House of Commons, which to his (Mr. Cruttwell's) certain knowledge, were not instigated by any party in the town."

[Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!] Why, was not the House led to believe the parishioners of Frome all agreed with the hon. Member, and that he had taken up their cause? Mr, Cruttwell concluded with the expression of a hope that this controversy would be ended, and that they would show themselves as friends, though they could not agree in Mr. Bennett's doctrines or ministration; and Mr. Miller, at the close of his letter, offered up the same prayer. That appeared to be the wish of the parishioners of Frome. He could assure the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary, if it was any satisfaction to him, that whatever the reasons of Mr. Bennett's going to the Roman church at Kissengen—if go he did—Mr. Bennett was as good a churchman as be (Sir J. Pakington) was; or as the Bishop of London was, when he made his celebrated charge in 1842; or as the hon. Member for Cockermouth himself.

expressed his surprise that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not come forward on an earlier occasion to defend the conduct and proceedings of Mr. Bennett; for he (Sir B. Hall) understood that the hon. Gentleman had been Mr. Bennett's cimrchwarden. The document to which the hon. Member referred bad been signed at Frome by 1,000 or 1,100 persons sitting in public-houses, smoking and drinking, who considered themselves such admirable judges of points of doctrine, that they expressed their conviction of the soundness of Mr. Bennett's principles. That was the way in which the document had been got up. [Mr. YORKE: I deny it.] The fact was asserted by Mr. Cruttwell, and denied by Mr. Miller. The former gentleman had written a letter, dated the 4th of June—[Mr. YORKE: Mine from Mr. Miller is dated the 7th of June]—in which he proposed that an inquiry should be instituted into the manner in which the signatures to the address had been obtained. His suggestion was that two gentlemen should be nominated, one by Mr. Miller and the other by himself—that the original signatures should be produced before them, and he pledged himself then to substantiate the truth of what he had stated. The hon. Member stated that his letter was dated June 7th; that was true enough, but the contents of that letter had nothing whatever to do with the manner in which the address was concocted. He (Sir B. Hall) had corroborative proof (if proof were wanting) in another letter, from which he would read an extract:—

"I cannot conclude without a remark on the absurd address lately got up in favour of Mr. Bennett. Mr. Cruttwell lately sent an explanation respecting it to the Times. But this does not adequately describe the absurdity. The signatures greatly outnumber the congregation of the church at any time, which holds, I believe, 800. The streets were canvassed, and persons and children of all grades of ignorance and poverty were pressed to sign, and have their names written for them—the tap-rooms of public-houses were visited at night for the same purpose. The market day was also used to serve the end, and persons casually coming on business from twenty and even thirty miles distance also signed; and yet such a wretched affair is permitted by Mr. Bennett to be used in public."

The hon. Gentleman had laid great stress on the point that his hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) had not been requested to take up this case by the inhabitants of Frome. That might or might not be; but it was at all events of no importance as regards the merits of the case; and most assuredly every true friend of the Protestant Church must feel indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing forward this matter. But he (Sir B. Hall) would not take up the time of the House with matters like these. The real question at issue was this—what were they to do under these lamentable circumstances; and the House must consider that Mr. Bennett and the Bishop of Bath and Wells were not the only delinquents. There were many others. Let them take a single case. An instance had been brought forward of a clergyman in this metropolis performing divine service in one of our churches, who had been seen attending Roman Catholic worship regularly Sunday after Sunday. The case had been submitted to the Bishop by a layman of the Church, who had witnessed this conduct. No notice of the communication was taken for thirteen days. At last the Bishop expressed himself satisfied with the submission of the clergyman. This clergyman was seen to go into a Roman Catholic chapel, where he crossed himself, and performed the usual genuflections, and where he subsequently remained during the whole of divine service, not on one Sunday only, but on consecutive Sundays. Yet that man was now performing the service in the church of St. Andrew's, Wells-street. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had asked, why did not the parishioners of Frome go into the Episcopal Court at Wells? What would be the use of going into that Court when the Bishop had only just appointed his own son to preside over it? If he were to quote the words of the Bishop of London in the letter depriving Mr. Bennett of the living of St. Barnabas, it would show that he had been the cause of persons leaving the Protestant Church; and he (Sir B. Hall) believed that Mr. Bennett had sent more converts to the Church of Rome than any other clergyman of the present day. But did not the hon. Gentleman the former churchwarden of Mr. Bennett know that there was a conventual establishment in connexion with the church of St. Barnabas, and that a daughter of a right hon. and learned Gentleman—with whom many hon. Members had the pleasure of being acquainted—was placed at the head of this establishment? Did he not also know that the father of that lady begged and prayed and entreated Mr. Bennett to use all the influence which he possessed, and to exercise any power which he possessed over the mind of that unfortunate young lady, in order to induce her to reverse her steps, and not continue a course which caused so much misery to her family? Did he not know that the rev. gentleman, now the pastor of Frome, refused to listen to the prayer of the parent, and that the daughter, and all associated with her, had now gone over to the Church of Rome? and yet, notwithstanding all this, Mr. Bennett found advocates in that House. But passing from this painful subject, let them look at the position in which the House now stood. The Motion of the hon. Member, though open to grave and serious objections, was, he believed, the best which, under the circumstances of the case, could have been brought forward. In what other way were they to act? They found a person placed as vicar of a parish who by his conduct and example from the time of his entry into St. Paul's to his ejectment from St. Barnabas, had induced large numbers of persons to go over to the Church of Rome; who, while travelling with Sir J. Harrington, had never attended a Protestant Church; and who, according to the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, was perfectly justified in doing so because he had a congregation of his own.

explained that he had never said that, and had already contradicted a similar statement.

had not understood the right hon. Gentleman to have done so, or he would not have made the statement; but the right hon. Gentleman certainly did say that Mr. Bennett was travelling as a chaplain to a private family; and that, in the eye of the law, a chaplain and a family constitute a congregation—but in this instance Mr. Bennett was not a chaplain, and the supposed congregation consisted of two persons, one of whom was Mr. Bennett's former churchwarden. But admitting it to be a fact, or supposing for the sake of argument that Mr. Bennett did not attend the Protestant Church, was there any justification for his going to the Roman Catholic service, as he had done over and over again? The right hon. Member held an important and responsible position as Member for the University of Oxford, and he would ask him who were the persons who ought to be most anxious to reform the ecclesiastical law? Was it not the Bishops of the Church of England? They were Peers of Parliament, and he was told that it was necessary they should be so in order that they might watch over ecclesiastical affairs. It was clearly the duty of the prelates to inquire into the state of the law; and he hoped that no long time would be suffered to elapse before some step was taken in that direction. The proposed inquiry by Committee was the best course which could be taken under the present circumstances, and he hoped the House would accede to the Motion. When the Committee was appointed, it could summon, the highest dignitaries of the Church before it to afford information on the subject, and if they refused to come forward let the reponsibility fall upon themselves.

wished to explain. He had ceased to be churchwarden of St. Barnabas in 1848, and was not aware of the circumstances of the case of the daughter of the late Recorder; but his impression was that the young lady herself had always been restrained by Mr. Bennett from going her own way to the Church of Rome. [Laughter, and "Oh, oh!"] It was all very well for the hon. Baronet to laugh, and cry "Oh, oh!" in that popular manner. What he had heard was that she had a strong inclination to go to Rome, but that she had been restrained by Mr. Bennett, and that as soon as he left St. Barnabas she went over to Rome with her uncle.

said, he begged to return his thanks to the hon. Member for Cockermouth for the very able statement he had made in bringing this case before the House. The hon. Member's principal allegations against Mr. Bennett remained unrefuted; they were in fact further corroborated by what had passed. It had, however, been stated, on high authority, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had no power legally to do otherwise than as he had done, and he should regret anything being done which might he held to manifest a disposition on the part of the House to attack a venerable Prelate for not having done that which the law would not permit him to do. The result of the present Motion was this—that the law as it existed stood condemned. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, and the admissions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, whose bent was certainly towards attempting an exculpation of all the parties implicated in this transaction, including Mr. Bennett, and the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford, who was admitted to be a high legal authority, he hoped that they would receive an assurance from the Government that whatever might be the result of this Motion, the law would not be permitted to remain in its present embarrassing state of inefficiency. The facts were admitted. What need, then, was there of any further inquiry into them? Under these circumstances, it was a question for the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth whether he would divide the House upon his Motion. Such a course might look like a desire to persecute the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but could add no confirmation to the facts of the case, because they wore already admitted. He hoped that they should, before the question was dropped or decided, receive an assurance from the Government that such an alteration should be made in the law as would have the effect of preventing men from acting as clergymen in the Church of England who were guilty for so doing while holding unsound doctrines.

I did not rise after the statement made by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman), because it was understood to be the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) to make a statement on behalf of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; and I felt it was better, both for the convenience of the House and of the Government, that we should be favoured with that statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. This discussion has, I think, very much cleared the case since the period when it was first brought under the notice of the House. To-night I think we have very completely investigated the position of the Bishop of Bath and Wells with respect to these circumstances, and I be- lieve I do not misinterpret the general feeling of the House if I designate it as one which it would he extremely reluctant, by any vote it could arrive at, to throw any censure upon the conduct of that Prelate. ["Hear!"] It may be, certainly, very easy for Gentlemen to sneer at that statement; but I think, after the calm and ample discussion, so ably conducted as it has been this evening, we must arrive at this conclusion, that however many of us may regret the institution of the individual who has become vicar of Frome, it is impossible for us to decide by a vote of this House that it was the duty of the Bishop of the diocese to prevent that institution. Nay, more, I think we have most of us arrived at this conclusion, that had the Bishop of the diocese thrown any difficulties in the way of Mr. Bennett's institution, he might, and probably would, have incurred very perilous consequences. In such a state of the law I think it is quite impossible for the House of Commons to come to a vote or arrive at a judgment which should, in fact, cast upon a bishop of the Church the condemnation of this assembly, because he has done that which all must admit to have been strictly his legal duty, and which, if he had not fulfilled, would probably have entailed upon himself most serious consequences. I consider the question of the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to be one perfectly distinct from the circumstances which occurred in another diocese in relation to Mr. Bennett; but, at the same time, at this moment I cannot but remember that it is only on the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells that we are called upon to make an inquiry. When this question was first brought under the notice of the House, in a manner which (though I am quite sure it was altogether unintentional on the part of the hon. Member for Cockermouth) was very unexpected to the Government, I took the liberty of stating then, with regard to the ability which parishioners should have of challenging the institution of one who is to become their vicar—I then stated that if the law did not offer a remedy, I thought it was our duty to supply a remedy; and, Sir, generally speaking, that is the opinion which now influences me, and that is the principle which I think ought to guide us in the present (I must describe them so) painful circumstances. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood) in the statement which he has made to-night, that all lawyers anticipated, and all the gentlemen of the long robe were prepared to find, that there was no remedy for the parishioners. I must still repeat, acting on the opinions given me as to the state of the law, that there is a remedy for parishioners under the circumstances in which the parish of Frome is placed, and that that is a remedy for which they need not go to the Ecclesiastical Court, nor have recourse to ecclesiastical law. But, Sir, I will not enter into that question again, which we have before argued, because I am perfectly willing to admit that there is not in my mind sufficient facility, or sufficient opportunity, for parishioners placed in the position of the parishioners of Frome to obtain that relief and redress which they have a right to expect and demand. As far, however, as the present Motion is concerned, it is merely the institution of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome which is at issue, and it is therefore the act of the diocesan which is before us, and which we are called upon to inquire into. I must repeat my opinion that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells cannot be fairly called into question on this occasion. But, if we were to appoint a Committee, let the House for a moment consider what would be the duties of that Committee. They would not be appointed, I apprehend, to rake up evidence or to institute proceedings against the Bishop. That is out of the question. Well, then, what would they be appointed for? Is it to be a Committee to consider the state of the law on the subject? Then, in my opinion, this is hardly the moment in which we should appoint a Committee to consider the whole state of the laws connected with the institution to benefices—a subject of the utmost difficulty and importance, and which I do not think the House of Commons would be the best instrument to carry on with effect and with satisfaction. I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to give something like a pledge from the Government that they would take into consideration that important subject, the state of the law with respect to the institution to benefices. I am sure my hon. Friend will not press me for a pledge on this subject, which is one of too great importance, and one of too great and difficult a character, for me to give a pledge upon now. But that it is a subject which must engage, sooner or later, the consideration of any Government that exists; that the state of our ecclesiastical courts is one which cannot much longer he tolerated; that with respect to our ecclesiastical courts we should follow the same course of, I trust, temperate and efficient reform which we have applied to all other kinds of judicature in the country—these, I think, are opinions which few of us do not share, and certainly they are sentiments upon which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to act. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth will not ask the House to come to a decision upon this Motion. If, indeed, he persists in so doing, although I myself most sincerely regret much that has occurred at the vicarage of Frome, although I would not at this moment go out of my way to offer criticisms on the conduct of other individuals concerned in these transactions, because it is unnecessary to do so now, especially when the conduct of one individual alone is called into question (though I do not believe the conduct of that individual can be successfully impugned)—if he asks me to support this resolution to appoint a Committee to investigate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells with respect to his accomplishment of an act which I do not think he could have refused to perform, I shall be compelled to offer to this Motion my decided opposition.

saw all the difficulties and objections to the course which was proposed, but he perceived no other remedy for the evil complained of except an inquiry by a Committee, which was not, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, an inquiry directed against the personal conduct of the Bishop—which was not so much either into the personal conduct and character of Mr. Bennett, but which was intended to be an inquiry into all the facts of the case, in order to ground upon them further proceedings with respect to the state of the law, which gave no relief to parishioners suffering from these grievances. Upon these grounds he should vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman).

said, he did not conceive the law was open to the parishioners of Frome. It was not possible that a Commission could issue from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, or from the Bishop of London, against Mr. Bennett—not from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, because it was clear that before Mr. Bennett's induction, and perhaps not since, he had committed no offence in that diocese; and it would be impossible to issue a Commission founded on what had taken place in the diocese of London before his resignation, for that would be trying him twice over; because, if he had not resigned his preferment, it would have been competent for the Bishop then to have issued a Commission under which Mr. Bennett might have been suspended or deprived, and he had taken the shorter course at once of resigning. And he contended, moreover, that it was not competent for the parishioners of Frome to go back into the practices which had taken place in reference to Mr. Bennett in the diocese of London. The question, however, now concerned the Church at large; and it was this- -whether a clergyman, after resigning his living upon one charge, might go abroad and commit any delinquencies, and then come home and be inducted into a living in another diocese, without there being any means of inquiry into his conduct on the Continent. There could be no difficulty in devising a remedy for this, and giving the power of inquiry into delinquent cies committed abroad; and as the object of this inquiry was to afford the means of doing so, he should, if the Motion went to a division, certainly vote for it.

said, it behoved the House to consider what was the real nature of this Motion, and how it affected the law which unquestionably existed. Let him remind the House that there was nothing in this Motion which at all involved the conduct of Mr. Bennett—the Motion applied in terms to the circumstances attending the institution of that gentleman to the vicarage of Frome. It was directed against the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; but after the luminous and able statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), and the discussion which this question had undergone, he should not say one word in reference to that right rev. Prelate, except to state that that right rev. Prelate had done an act as to which he had no choice, in which he was bound to do according to the law of the country, and that if he had not so acted he might have exposed himself to serious consequences. It had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a remedy existed by the law of this country for the grievances of which complaint had been made by the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth; and he (the Solicitor General) repeated without any fear of contradiction from any learned Gentleman in that House, or from any hon. Member acquainted with the law, that if it was true that Mr. Bennett, either by the way in which he discharged his duty as vicar of Frome, in preaching or teaching, or in the general parochial offices which devolved upon him, had been guilty of unsound doctrine or unsound teaching of the doctrines of the Church of England, it was competent for any parishioner to put the law in motion, and under the Church Discipline Act to proceed to punishment by the sentence of deprivation of Mr. Bennett. But the law did not stop there. It was competent to any parishioner of the parish of Frome, aggrieved by any unsound doctrine or teaching on the part of Mr. Bennett, to proceed against him in that way, provided only that the acts complained of had been committed in this country within the space of two years from the time of the prosecution. Looking to the state of the ecclesiastical courts in this country, he was free to admit that as to the practice of those courts, and the incalculable expense attending the most simple proceedings there, a remedy was loudly called for; and he ventured to join in the hope entertained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that those who had directed their energies to a reform of the courts of common law and equity would extend the benefit of their exertions to the ecclesiastical courts of this country.

was disappointed at the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to future legislation in respect to the ecclesiastical law, and the speech of the Solicitor General as to the state of the law, which had not encouraged any hope of something being done to place it in a more satisfactory condition. It was shown that the law was inaccessible to individuals, and that, therefore, snmething was necessary to be done. He regretted the state of things which had been disclosed as to the position of the Church. He was anxious to put an end to it, and at the same time was anxious not to impute blame to any party unjustly. But as there was no hope of any alteration of the law, he must, in order to promote this, object to vote for the Motion.

Sir, I am one of those who think it necessary to provide a remedy for the evils of the present state of the Church. I cannot express the pain that I feel at the recurrence of these debates in this House; and every fresh instance of such matters being discussed only strengthens my conviction of the crying necessity that the evils of the Church should be inquired into, and that her members should have the means of redressing those evils without coming to the House of Commons, which of all bodies by its constitution is the most unfit to sit as what would virtually amount to a court of heresy. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to give a distinct pledge that he would bring in a measure at a stated time, but that the Government would direct their early and anxious attention to the subject, with a view to the reform of the ecclesiastical courts. I would remind the House of what has happened heretofore with attempts at the reformation of our ecclesiastical courts. I am not certain how many Bills have been brought in with that object, and failed; but the Government of Sir Robert Peel introduced three separate measures of that kind, and they were received on their announcement with universal satisfaction; but when it came to the details, such was the strength of local interests, and of the local connexions of persons whose interests were involved in the continuance of the present system, that you found it utterly impossible to pass any measure that was really calculated to afford a remedy for existing evils. I say, therefore, when you ask the Government, and I am one of those who do ask the Government, to give their consideration to this subject, with the view of introducing a measure, that I likewise ask hon. Gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, to make up their minds also to resist those external influences which prevent them from giving an honest verdict on a subject like this, and to render assistance to the Government to carry out in spite of those influences measures which I believe are essential to the safety of the Church and the purity of our institutions.

said, he did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same sense as that attributed to him by the hon. Member who had just sat down; but the more he (Mr. Gladstone) saw those subjects discussed, the more his convictions were strengthened that there was a crying and immediate necessity that the question should be placed on such a footing that the members of the Church of England should have the means of redressing grievances of this kind without coming to the House of Commons, which was, by its very constitution, a most unfitting place for the consideration of such subjects.

begged to be permitted to say one word after what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes), who had entirely misapprehended the purport and object of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. He (Mr. Walpole) had looked most carefully into the words of the notice, to see whether the Government could accede to the inquiry asked for; and that inquiry he undertook to say would have been acceded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it had been instituted, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), to discover what improvements could be made in the law to remedy the difficulty which it presented. But when they listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and saw that he distinctly placed the issue upon the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the result of such an inquiry must either be a direct censure by Parliament of that conduct, or an impeachment to be instituted by a Member of that House against that right rev. Prelate; and seeing, as he did from all the arguments that had been addressed to the House, that it was totally impossible that the Bishop could have refused institution under the circumstances that had been stated to the House, without incurring the risk of a double action by Quare impedit in the Court of Queen's Bench, and by duplex gucerela in the ecclesiastical courts, a Motion likely to be attended with such results was not one, he thought, that ought to receive the sanction of the House of Commons. The question, therefore, was not, whether they would at a future period alter the law, which, he thought, involved a crying and grievous evil, but whether they should inquire into circumstances that could lead to no result but the one that he had pointed out, and which inquiry he undertook to say ought not to be granted, inasmuch as the Bishop had no opportunity of seeing what the law was, or of acting in a different way than he had done. For that reason he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division, or, if he did, that the House of Commons would at any rate refuse to accede to a Motion involving consequences which he must consider unreasonable and unjust.

He certainly had not understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to speak in as distinct terms about the necessity of altering the law as his right hon. Colleague seemed to have done. But it was owing to the want of that distinct understanding which ought to be given that he had made the observation he did, and to that observation he must adhere.

would not detain the House with any lengthened remarks; but he felt, in common with many hon. Members who had spoken in that debate, very considerable difficulty as to the course which it would be best for the House to pursue. From the manner in which the Motion had been introduced, it was clear that it was intended as an inquiry into the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and in the course of the debate he thought it had been satisfactorily established upon the best legal authority that, so far as the Bishop was concerned, there were no legal grounds for impeaching his conduct. He felt, at the same time, most strongly, that the state of the law as to the institution to benefices was extremely defective, and that it certainly ought to be amended in order to provide a remedy against the recurrence of abuses that would lead to discussions in that House calculated to inflame the public mind, and to occasion dangerous consequences to the Church of England. Feeling, therefore, that what was wanted was not an inquiry into a particular case, but into the state of the law, he would propose as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, that the inquiry, instead of being made into the circumstances of the institution of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, should be made into the state of the law affecting the institution to benefices in the Church of England.

said, it appeared to him that he could answer the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in three words. It was as if certain parties are brought to the bar, accused of murder, and a friend of theirs comes forward to propose an inquiry into the state of the law on capital punishment. That was the ingenious device by which the experienced Member for the University of Cambridge attempted to lead the House away from an inquiry in which they were very much interested, and into which it appeared that they thought it their duty to proceed. He felt it would be making all their proceedings that evening perfectly ludicrous, if they were to adopt so weak and so ridiculous an Amendment. It appeared to him to be a question, to some extent perhaps of law, but still more of common sense. He had already stated that he did not by choice propose a Parliamentary Committee upon the subject; but there was a maxim of law to the effect that there was no grievance without a remedy. Now, it was admitted that there was a serious grievance, and how was the remedy to be provided? Notwithstanding all that had been said by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, no suggestion had been made which he could accept as a means of remedy for the evil. Gentlemen learned in the law, experienced Members, Cabinet Ministers filling high and responsible positions, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford even, had addressed the House with great energy and ability, without, however, suggesting any remedy whatever. But, was this grievance to go unredressed? Were these facts to go uncorrected? Was the House of Commons, almost unanimously, to admit the existence of a serious grievance, and yet were they to sit still and do nothing? He need not tell the House he had no personal feeling or interest which had induced him to bring this subject before them. He was not acquainted with a single person in the parish of Frome when he brought it forward, nor had he had any communication with any one at Frome. He had always excused himself from bringing before the House mere local grievances. He had brought this forward as a general question, for he believed that Frome was but the type of what might take place in any other diocese in the kingdom. With all deference to the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken upon the law of this subject, he must say that they had somewhat mystified the matter. About the facts there was no doubt. Upon that point he must offer his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. That right hon. Gentleman was a practised debater, a zealous theologian, a subtle reasoner, and he had shown himself that night to be by no means a contemptible casuist. The right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House as if he held a brief upon the question, and most ably did he play the advocate for the ac- cused. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to lose his temper. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford had said that there was no case whatever against the Bishop, that he had conducted himself strictly according to law, and that no complaint could be made against him. Now, there were two points on which he (Mr. Horsman) made a complaint against the Bishop. It was said that a caveat was never lodged against the institution of Mr. Bennett. But what were the facts of the case? The day after the parishioners received notice of presentation, they forwarded an address to the Bishop; but having waited for an answer for a week, they addressed him a second time, and then there was another week's delay. The very day they got an answer from the Bishop, they set about lodging a caveat; but the delays which had occurred in the Bishop's answer prevented them from lodging it in time. Now, there was another point of law on which he wished to say a few words. He did not agree with the construction of the law which had been given by the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had addressed the House. They stated that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, if he had refused institution, would have been subject to a quare impedit; but, with all deference, he begged to dispute that assertion. Mr. Bennett was not legally qualified to be instituted until he produced from the Bishop of London his last diocesan letters of bene decessit. He would conclude by stating that he felt it his duty to press his Motion to a division, and he believed that the House would be disposed to give it their affirmation.

moved the adjournment of the House.

hogged to ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire what day he proposed to fix on for resuming the debate on the Maynooth question?

replied that it was not optional with him to fix any day for the purpose; he should now wait until in the course of business it came to his turn to bring on the question.

declared his intention to take the sense of the House on the Motion of his hon. Colleague, when the debate was resumed. The hon. Gentlemen who desired to speak on the question had every opportunity given to them to discuss it, but there appeared to be a distinct understanding amongst some hon. Members that they would defeat the question not by a direct vote, but by a system of factious opposition. The proceedings of that morning justified that opinion, and the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) favoured that attempt to quash the discussion of the question. But that attempt would not succeed, and whenever the dropped notice for an inquiry into Maynooth came on, he would ask the opinion of the House on the Motion for inquiry, and divide the House against any further adjournment of the debate.

trusted that the hon. Member for Salford would not persist in his Motion of adjournment. He wished the Maynooth question to be brought to a decision as soon as possible, and would be no party to getting rid of it by a sidewind. Were they to let five or six other orders drop in order to escape this one? It was most important that there should be a decision before the dissolution.

denied that it was his wish to get rid of any question; his object was to get rid of the House after a fourteen hours' sitting. If they proceeded with the Orders of the Day, they could not get away before four o'clock.

agreed with the hon. Member for Salford, and appealed to the Government for support.

certainly must say he thought they had sat quite long enough.