§ SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, he would take the earliest opportunity of explaining, that in the remarks he had made relative to the institution of Mr. 416 Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, in the debate of Tuesday night, he had then understood that the Bishop of London had written a letter to explain the effect of the certificate he had granted. From the statement made by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) he understood that three clergymen had signed the certificate, that it was countersigned by the Bishop of London, who had then written a separate letter, which was read to the House, and which, it was stated, had been forwarded to the Bishop of Bath and Wells; and he took occasion to remark, that although he would be the last person to offer a word that might be considered disrespectful to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, yet he did think that it was a mode not to be approved of, the signing a testimonial, and then sending a private letter to explain it—that, in his judgment, the memorandum should have appeared at the foot of the certificate. He had received a letter from the right rev. Prelate, in which he informed him that it was at the foot of the document itself—a mode which he expected the right rev. Prelate would have adopted, as being more in accordance with his general habits for straightforward and upright conduct. The mistake arose from the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) having stated that a separate letter had been sent, and that the letter had not been read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. He was delighted to find that the memorandum was at the foot of the certificate itself. Of course, that did not alter the legal effect, but it was much more in accordance with what he would have expected from a prelate of the high character of the Bishop of London.