England in the recent institution of that gentleman
to the vicarage of Frome. He traced the history of
Mr. Bennett from his appointment to the incumbency
of St. Paul's in 1843, observing that he had been known
previously by his preachings and writings, and that
remonstrances and warnings had been addressed to the
Bishop of London against his appointment, which were,
however, disregarded. Subsequently to the appointment
complaints poured in upon the bishop; tumultuous
proceedings took place on Sundays in the locality of the
church; the case forced itself upon the attention of the
public, the press, and the bishop of the diocese, who
required Mr. Bennett to resign his living, which, after
some communications with the bishop, he did, and his
resignation was accepted, the grounds assigned by the
Bishop of London for this proceeding being, among other
things, that Mr. Bennett had been unfaithful to the
Church and insubordinate to his diocesan. The people
of England (Mr. Horsman continued), never expected
that Mr. Bennett, after this, would have appeared in
any pulpit of the Established Church; it was with
astonishment, therefore, that within twelve months of
his resignation they found Mr. Bennett instituted to a
vicarage in another diocese. His resignation took place
in January, 1851; and in the summer of that year it
had been represented that, when travelling in Germany,
he had regularly attended mass in a Roman Catholic
church. The people of Frome, clergy and laity, in a
panic, addressed Lady Bath, the patron, intreating her to
refrain from nominating Mr. Bennett; she replied that
the appointment had been made and could not be
revoked. The presentee, however, must be approved
by the bishop, and the parishioners memorialised the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, objecting to the institution
of Mr. Bennett on three grounds—first, his own
published writings; second, the Bishop of London's testimony
against him and his virtual expulsion of Mr.
Bennett from his diocese; third, the bishop's statement
of the reasons why Mr. Bennett's resignation was made
and accepted. Mr. Horsman explained the conditions
under which a clerk in holy orders, removing from one
diocese to another, can alone be instituted by the bishop
of the diocese into which he removes, and animadverted
with some severity upon the manner in which the
Bishop of Bath and Wells had replied to the Frome
memorialists. In conclusion, he called upon the laity,
constituting, he said, the Church of England, to bestir
themselves in a constitutional manner, by laying their
petitions at the foot of the throne, praying her Majesty
to protect the Church, not against assaults from without,
but against traitors within, and compel even the
dignitaries of the Church to show that obedience to the law
which the Bishop of Bath and Wells had so wantonly
repudiated.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
admitted the importance of this subject; but said that
the means at the command of the house were inadequate
to deal with this case. According to Mr. Horsman, a
great grievance had been sustained by some of her
Majesty's subjects; but he had proposed no remedy.
Suppose the house assented to the motion, and the
Crown issued a commission of inquiry, it would have no
power to force individuals to give information. Either
there was at present a remedy for this alleged grievance
or not. He imagined there must be an appeal to the
Archbishop, and if so, that was a reason why the House
of Commons should not interfere by substituting a
measure confessedly inadequate. If he was told there
was no such appeal, was that not a reason for
legislation? If Mr. Horsman believed there was no remedy
by appeal, he was justified in bringing the case before
the house; but he should propose to legislate in a
suitable manner. Mr. Disraeli concluded by moving
the previous question.—A discussion followed, in which
many took part. In the course of it Lord JOHN RUSSELL
suggested that the better course would be to wait until
the ministry of the Crown should, in a friendly spirit,
ascertain the facts, when the house would be in a better
state to determine what steps to take, either by enforcing
the existing law, or by new legislation.—Mr.
GLADSTONE made a similar suggestion.—And Mr. WALPOLE
said, that, in compliance with these suggestions, the
government would institute an inquiry in a friendly
spirit into the facts, in order to see whether any and
what measures should be taken in this matter.—Mr.
HORSMAN, however, declined to withdraw his motion
upon any other condition than that there should be a
judicial inquiry.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
did not see how there could be a judicial inquiry; but
he would promise that the inquiry should be a bona
fide one.—Upon a division, the motion was lost bv 100
to 80.

On Wednesday, the 21st, Mr. CONOLLY moved the
second reading of a bill to secure the rights of the
proprietors of Salmon Fishings in Ireland, and to
consolidate existing acts on the subject.—The SECRETARY
for IRELAND opposed the bill, on the ground that it
would destroy the rights of the stake-weir owners, which
the act of 1842 had guaranteed, but promised, if the
decrease of fish, which he admitted was now proceeding
to an alarming extent, continued, that government
would take the matter into consideration.—Mr. MONSELL
remarked that the decrease of fish dated from the period
when parliament began to interfere.—Mr. SCULLY
recommended the withdrawal of the bill, and that the
subject should be left in the hands of the government.
He complained that the regulations of the present fishery
commissioners had occasioned much injury to the fishings.
Mr. HERBERT reiterated the same complaint, and, with
Captain Jones, Sir W. Somerville, and Mr. Whiteside,
joined in the recommendation that the bill should be
withdrawn, to which Mr. Conolly acceded.

Mr. DEEDES moved the second reading of the Parish
Constables Bill, which was agreed to after a brief discussion,
and an objection urged by Sir J. TROLLOPE, the
chairman of the poor-law board, to any increase of
charge on the poor's rate for purposes unconnected with
the support of the destitute poor.

On Thursday, the 22nd, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, after
the presentation of a vast number of petitions on the
subject, submitted a motion adverse to the policy of
deriving revenue from Taxes on Knowledge, either in
the shape of Paper Duty, Stamp Duty on Newspapers,
or a Tax on Advertisements, in reference to each of
which he proposed a separate resolution, in order not to
embarrass those who might be inclined to vote for any
one while objecting to any others. In 1834, a committee
of the house recommended the abolition of the paper
duty, which was injurious, not only in increasing the
price, and limiting the supply, of literary works to the
great body of the people, but also in limiting the demand
for labour, and preventing improvements in the
manufacture of the article. But for this tax, and the stringent
excise restrictions which accompanied it, we might
become the manufacturers of paper for the whole of
Europe. Another consequence was, that it kept down
the standard of cheap literature, and prevented the
publication of a high and useful class of works at a low price.
He suspected that the paper duty was originally imposed
for the purpose of limiting the supply of literature, and
fettering the press; and advertisement duty and the
newspaper tax had originated in the same view.
Financially speaking, he could not conceive anything
more stupid than a tax on advertisements—for what
more effectual means could be taken to keep down the
revenue than to impose restrictions on the free
communication of the wants of commerce, of trade, and of
labour? Then look at the gross injustice of a tax which
charged a poor servant girl who advertised for a place
the same amount as the rich trader, or the public
company whose advertisement occupied a whole column of a
newspaper—and which allowed advertisements in
omnibuses, in railway carriages, on walls, and advertising
vans, to go free, while it taxed every single announcement
of a want in a newspaper. The "Daily News"
was not allowed to publish, as news, useful information
about public sales and even charitable notices, without
being charged duty on each, whilst sporting papers were
permitted to publish announcements of prize-fights,
dog-fights, racing appointments, steeple-chases, and rat-
killing matches, without being taxed for them. The
paltry £150,000 a-year the revenue derived from this
tax, never could have been the reason for imposing it,
nor could it be the ground for retaining it. With regard
to the newspaper-tax, it originated in a recommendation
of the crown in 1711 to restrict the liberty of the press;
and, in the various acts for continuing and altering it,