nation and for me, the Parliament elected in the year 1847 is now extinct; and I may therefore treat of its existence as the historian Hume treats of the doings of the Barebones' Parliament, or the Long Parliament, or any other of those assemblies, meeting together in the times of religious ignorance and political persecution."

It should have occurred to such a reflecting mind as that of Mr. Bennett, that although the Parliament as a body was defunct, yet, Phoenix-like, it was on the eve of rising from its ashes by the re-assembling of the great majority of its former members. True it is that the question of Church reform has lost for the present the benefit of Mr. Horsman's great talents and courage, but more than two-thirds of the members of the old house are now sitting in the new. It is therefore a little unguarded to speak of the late House of Commons as the "Barebones' Parliament,”—a body which is pourtrayed by Rapin in the following language:

“The whole nation was surprised to find themselves under the dominion of such men, most of whom were artificers or retail merchants. Amongst these members was one Barebone— a Leather-seller, who in his neighbourhood passed for a notable speaker, because he used to entertain them with long harangues upon the times. From this man the people in derision called them Barebones Parliament. I shall leave this ridiculous assembly for a moment, which did nothing worth remembering,"* &c.

Had the Parliament, of which Mr. Bennett considers this a prototype, sat a little longer, it would probably have done something which he at least would have remembered. But when he compares the late Parliament, in reference to the debate upon himself, with the discussions which occupied the Long Parliament, he is nearer the truth, for in the opening of that assembly we find Mr. Pym among the grievances which he submitted to the crown, as requiring redress, introducing certain articles touching innovation in religion.

"1. Maintenance of Popish tenets, in books, sermons, and disputations. 2. Practice of Popish ceremonies countenanced * Rapin, vol. ii. fol. edit. 1732, p. 590.

and enjoined, as altars, images, crucifixes, bowings, &c." "These," said Mr. Pym, "I may in some respect compare to the dry bones in Ezekiel, which first came together, then sinews and flesh came upon them; afterwards the skin covered them, and then breath and life was put into them; so first the form then the spirit and life of Popery was to come amongst us. 3. Preferment of persons popishly affected,"* &c.

In this comparison of the late House of Commons with the Long Parliament, my readers will perceive that the historical recollections of our Vicar have served him well-each had the same subject matter to deal with-each a disposition to treat it in a like manner. Macaulay says of this constituent assembly, "In November, 1640, met that renowned parliament which, in spite of many errors and disasters, is justly entitled to the reverence and gratitude of all who in any part of the world, enjoy the blessings of constitutional government." (Vol. i. 97.)

That we may not be charged with partiality, we will borrow Mr. Bennett's quotation from Hume's description of the same body, leaving however the reader to decide whether the words are not more applicable to the leaders of a certain divinity school at the present day, than to the Members of the late House of Commons. "When men were enlisted in party, it would not be difficult, they thought, to lead them by degrees into many measures, for which they formerly entertained the greatest aversion. Though the new sectaries composed not, at first, the majority of the nation, they were inflamed, as is usual among innovators, with extreme zeal for their opinions. Their unsurmountable passion, disguised to themselves, as well as to others, under the appearance of holy fervours, was well qualified to make proselytes, and to seize the minds of the ignorant multitude. And one furious enthusiast was able, by his active industry, to surmount the indolent efforts of many sober and reasonable antagonists."+

Mr. Bennett appears also to compare not only the late Parliament with that memorable one of the 17th century, but

* Rapin, vol. ii. p. 352.

+ Hume's History of England, vol. v. c. 54.

also the temper of the present day with that which then obtained, when he speaks of assemblies meeting together “in the times of religious ignorance and political persecution." But he will find it difficult to persuade the men of the 19th century that this is a period "of religious ignorance," seeing there was never a time probably since the Reformation when religious works were more read. Witness the price of the old standard divinity, and the many re-prints of scarce works on this subject-the numerous religious books in the department of sermons, memoirs, and treatises on controverted points, which almost daily issue from the press. The cry of "political persecution" raised by the Romanists and echoed by the Tractarians is still more absurd-Though we live under the government of a female Sovereign, that Sovereign is neither Mary nor Elizabeth. No fires are now lighted in Smithfield or in Oxford to burn reformers; no prison doors are open to admit nonconformists-But such a cry is not unknown in English History. Under such a plea the Romanizing party endeavoured to obtain the ascendancy in the reign of James II., and some modern historians have spoken of that monarch as being in advance of his age when he endeavoured to annul the test act. Your great ancestor, my Lord, who fell a sacrifice to his endeavour to uphold the liberties and national faith of our Country, understood the character of that King better when he carried up to the Lords the vote of the commons on the exclusion bill. But considering that since those days, in just conformity with growing intelligence, the test act has been repealed and Catholic emancipation granted, it is strange indeed to raise the cry "of political persecution," because we refuse to recognise the assumed right of a foreign sovereign to confer ecclesiastical titles and dignities within this kingdom. Must not this feeling of dissatisfaction arise from some secret kindness towards the aggressive party, some latent hope that the recognition of this assumed right may offer a stepping stone to a broad platform upon which all differences may be merged, not by mutual concession, for the Romish dogma of infallibility forbids that hope, but by our relinquishing all that is not catholic, accor

ding to the phraseology of the party-that is renouncing the characteristic distinctions of Protestantism as opposed to Roman Catholicism? When I hear such cant as that of our being guilty of religious intolerance when we repel popish aggression, I am reminded of the answer our Minister at Turin once made, when the King of Piedmont was pressing him upon the subject of Catholic emancipation. "Sire, if your Majesty will grant the same amount of freedom to your protestant subjects as the Roman Catholics now possess in Great Britain, I shall be able, with some grace, to lay your request for their entire emancipation before my Sovereign." If we wish to know the real import of the terms "religious ignorance and political persecution," we must study the past history of these Vaudois subjects of the Kings of Piedmont, or even the present case of the Madiais at Florence.

But, my Lord, it is time that we should pass by such complaints as these which Mr. Bennett makes by the way, and proceed to the main points on which he considers himself aggrieved, and on which he wishes to set himself right with your Lordship and with the British public. In the first place he is wrong in stating that Mr. Horsman and the protestors of Frome stood in the relative position of counsel and clients. The truth is Mr. Horsman's advocacy of our cause was unsought by us, and continued till a late period of the discussion without any direct communication with us; but after the Parliamentary Committee was granted, we willingly and gratefully extended to him such information as it was necessary to offer to the Government. We feel that he did us good service, and we should act an unworthy and ungrateful part if we now refused to express our acknowledgments for the talent, courage, and industry with which he brought our grievance before the notice of the House of Commons and of the public.

Mr. Bennett has laid down certain principles which he says it is customary to regard in English trials; and he expresses his intention to show that all these principles were disregarded in his own case, though he is subsequently so carried away by his subject that he forgets to re-produce the

fifth and last point in question; not to mention, as I shall presently observe, that merely asking for an enquiry as to the truth of statements notoriously public, is not a trial. He complains that he was not informed of the nature of the charges to be preferred against him, and that thus he received "the stab of an assassin in the dark!" But what charges did Mr. Horsman bring against him which were not previously notorious? Our protest and our memorial embodied passages from his published writings, which we regarded as containing false doctrine. The Kissingen story had not only been made public by the newspapers before it was mentioned in the House of Commons, but Mr. Bennett had been acquainted by private letter of that report, and of the importance which was attached to it. These points, his conduct at St. Barnabas, and the cause of his quitting that cure, matters which Mr. Bennett himself had given to the public, were the subject of Mr. Horsman's charges against him. If the whole debate was unusual, it was so, because such a scandal is also unusual; but everything was conducted according to the usual forms of the House and with due decorum. If the rules of the House prevented Mr. Bennett's replying for himself, he surely did not lose in that respect, whatever his powers of extempore speaking may be, when he possessed such a counsel as Mr. Gladstone, who distinctly avowed himself the advocate of Mr. Bennett and the Bishop. As to the question of hearing evidence, there was no point adduced by Mr. Horsman which he was not prepared to prove before the Committee; and be it remembered that the utmost which he asked of the House was "that enquiry should be made.” With regard to the lack of professional advice, it was in consideration of the promise which the Government made to seek such advice, that Mr. Horsman's motion was negatived on the first occasion, April 20th; and Mr. Bennett always had the advantage not only of the talents of Mr. Gladstone, but also of the high legal knowledge of Sir P. Wood. The main question which must address itself to every honest mind is this,―were the statements which Mr. Horsman made, correct? Had he not been foiled by studied delays in obtaining that