house that the bishop was not competent to inquire into
because they would not have been a competent legal
justification to any steps he founded on them. The
quotations from Mr. Bennett's books would not have
made a good legal defence to a Quare impedit nor
would the Bishop of London's letter: if Mr. Bennett
had answered that he was at the time of examination
an attached and sincere member of the church of England,
and had explained away the doctrines complained
of, the bishop had no alternative but to institute him.
But, though glad thus to be delivered from the
consideration of Mr. Bennett's case, he had in fact formed
his opinion of it. 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 passages in his books, which had not been
cited in this debate,—he admitted 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 refuse to institute
such a person; and he confessed he looked to a
reform of the law 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 the only useful result it would have.—Colonel
BOYLE addressed the house for certain of the
parishioners in Frome, in favour of the motion. Colonel
YORKE followed him on the other side, on behalf
of the parishioners who support Mr. Bennett.—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
endeavoured to dissuade the house from adopting the motion.
He took the general disposition of the house to be one
of extreme reluctance by any vote to throw a censure on
the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; for they
had seen that had the bishop thrown any difficulties in
the way of Mr. Bennett's institution, he might, and
very probably would, have incurred very perilous
consequences. At the same time, Mr. Disraeli took the
liberty to say, that if the law did not provide a remedy,
—a fact, however, which he still doubted,—then it
would be the duty of the house to endeavour to supply
one; and if there were not—which in his mind there
certainly was not—sufficient facility, or sufficient opportunity,
for parishioners to obtain relief and redress, that
was a fit subject for their inquiry and legislation. But
the committee asked for would not have the function,
or, at this time of the session, the opportunity, to make
the necessary inquiry with satisfactory effect. Avowing
in general terms that the state of our ecclesiastical
courts cannot be much longer continued, and that the
government is prepared sooner or later to act on that
sentiment, he expressed his hope that Mr. Horsman
would not ask the house to divide on his motion.—The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped that those who had devoted
their attention to the measures for the improvement of
the proceedings in our courts of common law and equity
would extend the benefits of their inquiry to the
ecclesiastical courts of this country.—Mr. WALPOLE stated
that at the end of Mr. Horsman's speech the members
of the government examined attentively the terms of
the motion to see if it would bear the construction of
being suggestive of an inquiry into the law, to which
they were not averse; but after the speech which
introduced it, they could only regard it as directed
against the bishop.—On this Mr. GOULBURN moved an
amendment, to make the inquiry of the committee
simply "into the state of the law respecting the
appointment to benefices."—Mr. HORSMAN opposed this
amendment: it was (he said) like proposing to inquire
into the criminal law on a trial for murder.—The house
divided on a question involving the point whether or not
the original motion should be altered. The numbers
were 156 to 111 against altering the original proposition;
majority of Mr. Horsman against ministers, 45. The
original motion for a select committee was then put
substantively, and agreed to.

On Wednesday June, 9, the Marquis of BLANDFORD
moved the second reading of the Episcopal and Capitular
Revenues Bill.—Mr. WALPOLE stated the intentions of
government on the subject. He had communicated
with the head of the government and with the highest
authorities of the church, and had now to state that
the government were willing to undertake, and would
undertake the consideration of the subject, with reference
to capitular bodies and cathedral institutions, so as
to make them more extensively and practically useful
than they are at present—so as to extend the spiritual
instruction and education which might advantageously
be afforded by those bodies. There were four essential
points of detail in the bill. First, the abolition of
deaneries, and the consolidation of the office of dean
with the office of bishop; secondly, the further reduction
of the number of canonries; thirdly, by means to
be acquired through these alterations, to add to the
episcopate of the country; fourthly, to make provision
for the better management of episcopal and capitular
revenues. For the abolition of the deans he saw no
reason; he doubted whether, with a view to keeping up
cathedral institutions in sufficient force, the number of
canonries could be reduced further; the increase of the
episcopate he thought very desirable, if a fund for the
purpose can be found. It should be an object to relieve
these high officers of the church, as far as possible, from
the cares and troubles of all worldly and temporal affairs,
but at the same time to preserve the property in such
connection with them as not to leave them mere dependents
and stipendiaries of the state.—Sir Robert INGLIS
corrected the opposition as to an impression they might
have been under with respect to the sentiment they had
just cheered: Mr. Walpole did not mean to separate
the church from the state, nor to remove bishops from
the house of lords. [Mr. Walpole signified assent.]—
In the course of the discussion on the ministerial statement,
Mr. Sydney HERBERT said that in church
reform his own opinions probably went beyond those of
any around him. He was not one who thought a very
large addition to the episcopate necessary: one of the
causes of the desire for an augmentation is that the
bishops are in a situation they ought not to be in, that
of land-agents for the ecclesiastical commissioners. The
recent establishment of St. Aidan's college at Birkenhead
showed that institutions with the duties which
the chapters were appointed to perform are a requirement
of the present age.—The Marquis of BLANDFORD
accepted willingly the undertaking of the government,
both because that course met the sense of the house,
and from his personal inclination. The order for a
second reading was discharged.

On the order, moved by Lord R. Grosvenor, for going
into committee upon the County Elections Polls Bill,
Mr. PACKE moved that it be deferred for six months.
He had heard, he said, but two reasons for one day's
county poll: first, that bribery was promoted by a
second day's poll, which he believed was not the case;
second, that the second day increased the expense of
candidates. This he admitted; but the convenience of
candidates, he thought, was not to be purchased by
curtailing the franchise of the constituency. In close
county contests, one day would not suffice for the
polling.—Mr. ALCOCK supported the bill.—Mr. WALPOLE
considered that this question rather concerned
county members than the government; at the same
time, he was not prepared individually to offer any
opposition to the committal of the bill.—The motion for
going into committee was supported by Mr. B. Denison,
Mr. W. Brown, and Mr. L. King, and opposed by Mr.
Henley, Mr. Fellowes, Mr. Deedes, and Colonel Sibthorp.
—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think there was a
pressing necessity for the measure at this moment. He
thought the limitation of the polling to a single day
very desirable, and would not oppose the motion if a
proper machinery could be provided for the alteration
in time for the next election; but apprehending
considerable inconvenience from adopting the proposal at
the approaching election, he should oppose it.—Mr.
COBDEN observed that the principle of the bill being
admitted, the objections were for the committee.—The
original motion was opposed by Sir B. Bridges, and
supported by Mr. Bouverie, Mr. W. Miles, and Mr. Oswald.
Upon a division, it was carried by 166 against 82. The
house then went into committee on the bill, but the
proceedings were interrupted by the Disorderly Conduct