object was to get rid of the college altogether. He
had no objection to a bona fide inquiry, but he did
object to one that was unfair and insulting. If the
motion was not a mere sham, if an honest inquiry was
really sought, let it be either by a royal commission, or
by the visitors, persons of distinguished rank and
character, who had an inherent power under the act to
examine upon oath all persons, and into all matters.
With respect to the grant itself—this miserable and
wretched grant, as Mr. Scully termed it—he maintained
that the people of Ireland were entitled to it, not only
upon the ground of compact, but upon the stronger
grounds of policy and justice. To establish this part of
his argument, Mr. Scully produced a long array of
historical authorities, which, with a very comprehensive
survey of the character and effects of the penal laws,
and an examination of the history of the Maynooth
college from its first endowment in 1795, occupied the
time until four o'clock, when, though his speech was
still unfinished, by a recent rule of the house, the sitting
terminated.

At the evening sitting, Mr. HORSMAN, in moving for
a select committee to inquire into the circumstances
connected with the the Institution of the Rev. Mr.
Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome, referred to what had
occurred at a previous debate upon this subject, which,
he contended, showed clearly and distinctly that his
motion was understood to be directed, not against
Mr. Bennett, but against the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
The result of the bonâ fide inquiry promised by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was doubtful
whether, under the Clergy Discipline Act, Mr. Bennett
could be made amenable; but in regard to the Bishop
of Bath and Wells, it was acknowledged that there was
no redress whatever at law against him for instituting
Mr. Bennett. After giving some further details in
vindication and corroboration of the statements he had
made as to the proceedings of Mr. Bennett at Kissingen,
and his alleged Romanist tendencies, Mr. Horsman
addressed himself to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath
and Wells, in comparison with whose acts, he said,
those of Mr. Bennett were perfectly insignificant.
What he had already charged against the bishop fell
short of the truth. He had instituted Mr. Bennett in a
manner and with a haste which showed a determination
to shut out the parishioners of Frome from the legal
redress which they would have had if more time had
been allowed; he had done it without the certificate
from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan, which by law he
was under an obligation to require, and without that
due examination of the presentee which was enjoined by
law, and which the parishioners had a right to demand.
All this was done, he averred, not accidentally or
carelessly, but advisedly, and in order to defeat the ends of
justice. In support of these charges, Mr. Horsman
entered into a minute exposition of the proceedings in
connection with the institution of Mr. Bennett, in the
course of which he read a letter from the Bishop of
London, appended to the certificate, in favour of Mr.
Bennett, of three beneficed clergymen in his diocese,
which acquitted this right reverend prelate, he
observed, of being a party in misleading or deceiving the
Bishop of Bath and Wells. Ascertaining from the
judicial opinion of Lord Ellenborough the legal import
of the words "due examination," Mr. Horsman insisted
that the avowed and published sentiments of Mr. Bennett
imposed upon the diocesan, before instituting him, the
obligation of requiring an explanation—some of those
sentiments touching the supremacy of the crown in
spiritual matters, and that such explanation should have
been made public. Instead, however, of demeaning
himself as an impartial judge, the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, he alleged, had sunk the dignity of that office in
the littleness of the partisan. The question then was,
what is to be done? It had been admitted by the
government that the importance of the subject could
not be exaggerated; and no other mode of inquiry being
available, he was driven, after long delay, to propose a
parliamentary committee. There was no duty of
parliament more obvious than, when it had established a
church for the teaching of one religion, to take care
that it should not be made subservient to the doctrines
of another. The responsibility of this question, therefore,
now rested upon parliament alone.—Mr.
GLADSTONE, regarding this as mainly a legal question,
objected to the tone and spirit of Mr. Horsman's speech.
Having taken upon himself the character of a public
accuser, he was bound to be accurate in the language he
used. The wounds of the Church of England were not
likely to be healed by rhetorical declamations and
mis-statements. The first question to be considered was, is
the country to be governed, in ecclesiastical and civil
matters, by the private opinions of particular men,
according to the popularity of the moment; or by a
system of fixed law? If the last, had the law been
obeyed? He admitted that it was a great absurdity
that there was no provision for the correction of
delinquent bishops: but he asserted that the Bishop of Bath
and Wells was not a delinquent, that there was not even
a presumption of delinquency against him. Mr.
Gladstone laid much stress upon the sentiments
expressed by the parishioners of Frome in favour of Mr.
Bennett, the rational inference from which fact, he
thought, was, that he had become steady in his allegiance
to the church of England. He briefly noticed the
proceedings of Mr. Bennett at Kissingen, which, he
contended, were not within the proper cognisance of the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, and then examined the three
charges preferred by Mr. Horsman against that right
reverend prelate, every one of which, he asserted, was
without foundation. A bishop was not at liberty to
refuse institution to a presentee but upon strict legal
proof of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct, or defect
of learning; he was liable to be called into the Court of
Queen's Bench by a writ of Quare impedit, and if he failed
in proving a ground of refusal he suffered in costs.
In the case of Mr. Bennett no legal ground had been
laid before the Bishop of Bath and Wells which would
have justified him in refusing or delaying the
institution of that gentleman. With respect to the second
charge—the want of a certificate from the Bishop of
London—he answered that the Bishop of Bath and
Wells had received from Mr. Bennett a testimonial the
refusal of which would have exposed him to proceedings
at law; the explanatory note of the Bishop of
London only imposed upon the Bishop of Bath and
Wells the duty of ascertaining for himself the doctrines
entertained by Mr. Bennett. The third charge was
founded, he observed, upon a hideous doctrine of
judicial duties, namely, that the "due examinations" are
to be of such a nature as to satisfy not the bishop, a
great public officer, acting judicially, but others upon
whom no responsibility was cast. The Bishop of Bath
and Wells did examine Mr. Bennett in all those
matters which were points of difference between the
church of England and that of Rome, and he had been
satisfied. Mr. Gladstone investigated certain opinions
imputed to Mr. Bennett, which, he argued, contained
no theological or legal offence that could justify the
bishop in staying the institution. If they did, why
was Mr. Bennett not proceeded against in the
ecclesiastical court? As to the motion he objected to its
terms, which implied censure; and he thought if there
was to be an inquiry, it ought to be into the state,
spirit, and enactments of the law, which seemed framed
to discourage bishops from doing what the Bishop of
Bath and Wells was accused of omitting to do.—Sir
John PAKINGTON; seemed to think the allegations
about Mr. Bennett seriously backed by evidence; but
he doubted the fitness and propriety of the house of
commons as a tribunal for such an inquiry. He
expressed his astonishment at Mr. Gladstone's justification
of Mr. Bennett's abstinence from orthodox churchgoing,
at Kissingen, when the whole family to which
he was chaplain was only Sir John Harrington, "the
churchwarden of St Paul's, Knightsbridge, who
distinguished himself more by zeal than discretion in Mr.
Bennett's case with the Bishop of London."—Sir Page
WOOD did not dispute the power of the house to make
the inquiry; but he urged on members that it behoved
them, as the great inquest of the nation, to act with a
judicial mind. He argued that the bishop could not in
this case, consistently with his duty, have done anything
else than what he did. The charge of indecent haste
he disposed of by information as to the legal formalities
of procedure. The Kissingen facts he assured the