The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-18 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Upton's Estate Bill was read a third time and passed.
Lord SEYMOUR moved that the following be the select
committee on the Batteries Park Amendment and Exten-
sion Bill—namely ; Lord Seymour, Mr. Alderman Hum-
phery, Mr. D'Eyncourt, Sir Wm. Clay, Mr. Vm. Wil-
liams, Mr. Alcock, and three members to be nominated by
the committee of selection. Three to be the quorum.—
Agreed to.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
PETITIONS PRESENTED.
TEE CRYSTAL PALACE.—By Mr. 1111.0ADLEY, from
Pocklington, Yorkshire; Mr. 1. THORN ELY, from Dan-
bury; Mr. MUNDY, from Ashbouruo ; Mr. IL WdE, from
Chelsea ; and Mr. LAMM:C:IIEIIE, from Taunton ' • Mr.
HODGSON, front the committee for promoting the Great
Exhibition at Car:isle, and one from the inhabitants of the
same place for the maintaining the Crystal Palace as a
winter garden.
THE PAPER DUTY AND THE TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.—

the belief of others. (Hear, hear.) The; noble earl By Mr. M. GIBSON, from the National Temperance Se-
amed that as far as their influence went, the influence ciety, complaining that they arc impeded by these taxes in
of the Jews would be hostile to Christianity ; and he their efforts to disseminate information amongst the poor
anticipated the reply that the Jews admitted to parliament on the subject of alcohol and the laws of health ; Mr. HEY-
would be but few, by asserting that this was n question of WORTH, from Derby, for their repeal.
principle, and that from the principle we ought not to swerve Tim WESLIVIAN CONEENENCE.—By Mr. COBDEN,
one hair's breadth. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought it was from the Wesleyan methodist societies at Leeds, Otley, and
suite clear that the principle was gone al-ready. The noble another place, complaining of the oppression of the wo-
oed seemed to believe that there was • difference between (entice.
administering and making the law; but he (the Duke of THE MILLING INTERESTS.—By Mr. FITZROY, from
Argyll) could not see the difference. As regarded, how- the guardians of Donoughmore, Queen's county, preying
ever, the making the Dew, the principle was gone. The the house to take into consideration the state of the milling
Jews had been admitted to the privilege of the electoral interests.
franchise ; and the Jew, therefore, exercised, in the most COUNTY RATES AND EXPENDITURE.
complete manner, legislative power. (Hear, hear.) The Mr. M. GIBSON, in reply to a questiou from Sir J. Pa.
noble earl said that this was a matter (of abstract prin-
ciple ; and, of course, he excluded all question of degree. KINOTON, respecting the bill on the subject of county rates
and expenditure, said that as the bill had been very
The noble earl pointed out that avowed infidels had been much altered by the government from the form in which it
returned to parliament ; but he went on to say that it was was submitted to the house, and as the Home Secretary,
a satisfaction to his mind that although such men as who had taken a very active part in the committee, was
Bolingbroke and Gibbon had obtained seats in the House of absent, he should think it could hardly be proceeded with
Oanunous, known to their constituency and to the House of before the end of the session. As, however, the bill was
Commons to be infidels, they had nevertheless been coin. ordered to be committed, the house would of course go into
•d, before taking their seats, to go through the forms committee upon it on the day fixed for that purpose, unless
imbratory of their faith as Chksti aus. lie (the Duke of the hon. baronet saw fit to move that it be committed that
Argyll) could see no reason fur satisfaction in a day three months, which would of course dispute of the
I elecunistance which induced hypocrites to aggravate matter.
their hypocrisy ; and he could not understand what
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—MR. BERRIES'
possible gratiination the noble earl could perceive in it.
(The Earl of Shaftesbury : I did not say Out) Ile had MOTION ON THE NAVIGATION LAWS.
Mr. DISRAELI begged to ask the right hon. gentleman
understood the noble earl to say so distinctly.
The Earl of SHAFTESIILRY explained. He hail the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the discussion
upon the navigation laws was to take place or not, because
limply said that Bolingbroke and Gibbon had jeopardised
Moir own tenets in being compelled, though infidels, to several inquiries had been made by gentlemen on both sides
boar public testimony to a principle which privately they
ed.
of the house whether it was certain that the question would
be brought on to-morrow (this day)) ?
illsal
The Duke of ARGYLL considered that the noble earl The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
had confirmed his (the Duke of Argyll's) representation of no announcement had been made on the subject because
Me argument of the noble earl. (Hear,
they could not tell at resent how long the committee of
na nee any difference in the statement O hear.) lie could f
the noble earl and supply would take. T progress made in supply on Moli-
im statement which he himself had made to their lord-
day had rendered it very doubtful whether they would close
skips. What was the principle involved ? The consti•
the committee of supply to-night ; but if they did not he
testacy, theoretically re sired to elect a true Christian, hoped that they would be able to do so to-morrow, and then
broke through the principleq in electing a known infidel;
the right hon.
on Monday.
member for Stamford's motion could be
sad there could be ne satisfaction ins seeing the house im- brought forward
pose a peculiar form of words profcssive of the faith of a
Mr. DISRAELI—Then, are we to understand that the
Christian upon • man who was known not to be a Chris- discussion on the navigation laws will take place on Men-
tion. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl virtually acknow-
day. whether the committee of supply has terminated
lodged that no principle was involved in confessing, towards
or not ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No.
the close of his speech, that had these words not been
We propose to take the supply, in preference to all other
already inserted in the oath ho would not now approve of
their insertion. These words being there, the noble earl business, until it is finished.
was unwilling to see them struck out; because, said the Mr. M. GIBSON begged to ask the right hon. member
noble earl, to do this would appear in the eyes of the for Stamford what were his intentions with regard to the
people to be an abandonment of Christianity. But this discussion on the navigation laws.
Mr. lIERRIES—It is my decided intention to bring for-
beargument could be easily overcome. The people ought to
untructed that these words were never introduced for the ward my motion u soon as I can, and I
be on Mon-
denied from what
assertion of a principle, and that in striking them out we
has fallen from the right hon. baronet, it will
denied no principle. It was easy to strike out these words, day next. (Cheers.)
while at the same time letting the world understand that Mr. E. B. ROCHE begged to ask • question of the
we were not indifferent to the great truths of Christianity. right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Me had an immense admiration for the theory propounded sod, in order that he might be in order, he should conclude
by the late Dr. Arnold, in regard to the re aloes which by moving that the house do now adjourn. The question
ought to subsist between the church and the state. was as to the mode of conducting Irish bills and Irish busi-
Theoretically it was the highest position to which human nese in that house. For a long time past he, as well as all
society could aspire—the church to be one with the state, and the other members who took au interest in Ireland---
the state one with the church. But he (the Duke of Argyll) Sir J. PAKINOTON rose to order. He thought this
bad to recognise the present actual state of society, its re- practice of making speeches on any subject whatever under
ligious divilwas, and religious controversies; and his belief the pretext of a sham motion of adjournment was one to
was, that this theory would never be realised. (Hear, which the attention of the house ought to be directed.
bear.) He was afraid that, in despair of the realisation of (hm'. hear.) He did not wish to be in the slightest de-
ibis thewy, they would hays to go to the opposite extreme give discourteous to the hon. gentleman, but he ventured
—upon the broad and distinct principle, that spiritual and to submit that this was a most inconvenient practice, and
evil affairs must be completely separated. On Monday he wished to know whether it could not be checked, by
next he would enter more fully. into that argument; but making it imperative upon all members that should adopt
he had no hesitation at once in pronouncing the opinion such a course to confine themselves strictly to the motion
that spiritual and civil affairs ought to be why separated, itself? (Cheers.)
mad that the action of parliament would never be benefited The SPEAKER said that (as he had remarked on a
by interference or connexion with any matter purely Bpi. former occasion) this was a most inconvenient course. Al-
tttual. Convinced that it was unjust and inexpedient to though hon. members had a right to move the adjournment
exclude from parliament any individual of an class on the of the house, they ought to confine themselves to the rea-
ground of his religious faith he should vote for the second
sons why the house should be adjourned. (Cheers.)
reading of this bill. (Cheers.) Mr. ROCHE, resuming, said that if the hon. baronet had
The Bishop of NORWICH apprehended that the re- only waited, he would have seen that he (Mr. Roche) only
sistance so often repeated against the measure disparaged meant to carry out what had been expressed from the chair.
the character of the country for Christian toleration; and He intended to move that the house do adjourn, and his
fearing no real danger from passing it, should vote in reason was because Irish business was kept in abeyance
favour of the second readiug. while English business was conducted. Now he meant to
The Bishop of Oxford and Lord Abinger rose together. move that they should adjourn for the purpose of ascer-
There were loud cries for the rev. prelate ; but the noble taming whether the government meant to give them an op.
lord maintained kis position, and, eventually, the Bishop of portunity of fairly discussing Irish questions in that home.
Oxford gave way There were twenty-nine motions on the paper for that
Lord ABINGER would vote against the bill. It had night, of which eight were Irish, and of them three or four
never been the intention of the framers of these oaths were of the greatest importance. He thought the govern-
to permit Jews to enter parliament, and he considered merit ought to allow them, if not a night, at least a day, for
that, humanly speaking, there were special reasons the consideration of those motions ;'and he therefore begged
why the Jew was not entitled to a participa-
leave to move HIM the house do now adjourn.
tins in the privileges of a Christian community.
contended that toleration had its limits, and that sects The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
He
think the hon. gentleman had made out • very elear reams
ht arise in this country to whom it would be most lin-
e
tic to grant cinl rights. Where did they ever hear be- why they should adjourn; and certainly an odioasunient
was not a very obvious way of expediting the transaction of
of a nation which was anti-social as the Jews ? It was their business. (Laughter.) With respect to the charge
said that the blood of the Chaldeans ran as purely in the of the hon. gentleman, that English business was preferred
veins of the Jews now 111 l it had done in the days of the to Irish, he had only to observe that the intention was to
of supply, Mosaic dispensation. This it was which had caused their Eurizigdh with the thlreishaa;nuniandlteiet which
11
ithcaht wasout ofn o
thei 1.4 expulsion from Egypt, and which at the present time con- E
Moved them as a separate people in the bosom of every nos- votes before them that evening, 10 were Irish. (Cheers
Ilna In the world. and laughter.) It was certainly very desirable that many
TM Earl of GALLOWAY said he would endeavour to of the bills to which the hon. gentleman hail alluded should
explain in a single sentence the vote he intended to give be discussed; but the committee of supply was of yet
upon this bill. In the New Testament it was said that greater consequence, and it would have been terminated
without faith—the faith of Jesus Christ—it was impossible I
on g since if it had not been for the numerous modem
so please God. Now, the Jew not only had not, but, while which hon. gentlemen had placed upon the paper. (gem)
be remained unconverted to Christianity, he could not have THE HORFIELD AFFAIR.
that faith. Therefore, in the administration of our affairs Mr. HOESMAN observed that after the amnia WI
he could not please God. With the Scriptures of truth in the Horfield estate, an understanding was came to One
W hand, he rejected the truths they contained, and there- they should have an explanation from his hon. friend oppo.
poi be was unfit to legislate for a Christian people. (Hear, site (Mr. P. Miles), and therefore he wished to ask
INGO whether it was his intention to bring on the subject that
The Bishop of Oxford, who was expected to follow night?i
nest in the debate, had, during the delivery of the Earl of r. P. MILES said that if he were called on for an eze
Galloway's few remarks, left hie seat for the purpose of con- planation, he should be perfectly ready to give it then.
mning with a noble lord near the throne, and, when that Mr. HORSMAN said the Chancellor of the Ex
, noble earl had concluded, had either not returned to the could have no objection to the explanation being gill=
ecclesiastical bench, or was desirous thee another speech in the first vote in supply.
favour of the bill should be delivered beim he &darned The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
the house against it. that he should strongly object to any motion that inter-
The LORD CHANCELLOR, availing lionit of the freed with the supply. (Laughter.)
I momentary mums which ensued, ma man boighter to The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn.
reply, it being • well landsesteednde la the isms of Lords HARWICH ELECTION.
that after th= Ms lisis ask as dime met temii- Mr. BANKES, in furtherance of his motion of Wedlleo-
NSW He thee the mar eigestlers node to the day, moved that it be an instruction to the ral e commit-
blll wok doe die Jews were • eamsento neidea, and that tee of elections to select a chairman and six other members
ask amain Involved a greet gedwilgle. Supposing to be the select committee to inquire into the Ai
allegations at

a petition relative to the last election for the borough of
Herwieh.
Mr. COBDEN did not oppose the motion, as the govern-
meat had assented to the inquiry ; but, with reference to
the character of the borough, he observed that this would
be the fourth committee which would have eat upon this
borough during the present parliament ; that it stood pre-
eminent for corruption in every possible form; and he
thought that 24 hours should elapse after the writ was moved
for before it issued, believing that it would be the unani-
mous opinion of the house that it ought not to issue.
Mr. BUNCOMBE likewise did not object to the com-
mittee, though the allegations in the petition were the
loosest he had ever heard; but he asked who was respon-
sible for it ? The house might legislate against tho
borough upon public notoriety, as in the case of St. Albans,
without inquiry'.
Mr. J. bit ItlIT said the disfranchising a borough
without inquiry, depriving men of a sacred right, was re-
pugnant to every principle of justice.
Mr. OSBORNE said, the borough of Harwich had been
long proved to be corrupt, and it ought long ago to have
been disfranchised. Inquiry was not wanted; the borough
I should be put at once into schedule A.
Sir B. ![ALL expressed the same opinion, adding that
when a new writ was moved for he should move that it do
not issue.
Mr. V. SMITH said the question raised by the petition,
as to the conduct of government officers, should be decided
by the house upon the grounds laid by the member who
brought forward the charge.
M. HUME objected that the house was about to appoint
a committee without having any evidence before it, and it
ought to ascertain who was the responsible party and who
was to bear the expense.
Mr. DISItAEL[ said this objection might be a very good
one in the mouth of the ministers ; but, after they had as-,
rented to the inquiry, it was not for the house to stop an in-
vestigation which concerned its own privileges. Whatever
might be the purity or impurity of this borough, or the
paucity of its constituency, the question at issue was as to
the interference of government at an election.
Mr. E. DENISON objected to the mode proposed of no-
minating the committee.
Mr. BANKES, in reply, justified the course he had
pursued.
The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it
HAULBOWLINE.
. .

evidence, to which Mr. Miles had not made any ann.
sion. And let hint remind the house of the statement
which he made. The lion. gentleman repeated the charge
he had made on the former occasion, namely, that the
present Bishop of Gloucester granted a renewal of
the lease of the Hoekld estate, which his two prede-
cessors, Bishop Grey and Bishop Allen, had abstained
from doing. Now he made this statement on the evidence
of the Rev. Mr. Richards' rector of ilordeld, who had been
for twenty years perpetual curate there, and appeared to
be well acquainted with all the circumstances connected
with the estate during tho lifetime of these bishops. Mr.
Richards in his evidence stated that he talked seve-
ral times with Bishop Grey on the subject of the
renewal of the lease, that the negotiations about
it had been broken off on accountj of the inade-
quacy of the sum offered; that some time before his
death he had given up all idea of a renewal of the lease,
and that he said he would rather have the money go to
the see after his death than to enrich his own family.
Such was the evidence of Mr. Richards. It might be true
or it might not, but at all events it was the precise state-
ment he made the other night. But the evidence of Mr.
Richards was not the only evidence on the point. Them
was also the letter of Bi-hop Grey's son on the subject,
which he had shown to the hon. geutleinan. Mr. they in
that letter says:
You were quite right in denying, bs(ore the committee of the
House of Commons. that the non-renewal of the Hayfield ham by my
late fath,r, whin Bishop of Bristol, was attributable to his sudden
removal by death. His lot illness W. protracted, having lasted up.
wards of a twelvorgonth, ant its probable terminating was foreseen
by his family for some time before bin dmth. Neginiataogg for • re-
newal had been going on, I think I may softly say, not less than
three years before that event (I speak, however, from memory), at en
early stage of which it was intimated that the then lessee (Dr. Shad.
well was prepared to pay thesmne flue as upon the last renewal. At
a tatar stage. same months before my It ther'a death, a larger sum
(either 3,0001. or 6,00°1.) was offered as a line for the renewal of the
team. Oa both occasions the Bee was refuge las inadequate. Upon
either my lather mitht ,blive renewed lies lease, hat he been so
minded. He was, however, as you know, not the man to do dirty
work by swathing his family at the expenge of his successors.

• But was not the only proof. Thero was the letter of
Bishop Allen on the subject:
A. f w.. prepared. if my opinion bad been reared by the eeclesiaeti•
cal commtesioners, to have recommended tae llorti, 4 property, i•
the diocese of Bridal, to be assigned over to the coimnissioners for
the building of a palace, and for other purposes under the wit, be.
fse a new bi.hop was appointed, ea in my own case I c n have no ob.
jecti.in to the dr. Alban's property of the see of Ely, woWli is nearly
similarly circumstanced 411 to the age of the remaining life and life
tenure of the lams to the lierfteld property, being transferred to the
commis-sinners, it being my decided opinion that nettlair of these
I•nt-ea should be renewed for lives, and that upon their eeplration t►e
Mum for the lull terms of II yearn ihoutd be at the disposal of the
cerlerhaticalcommbsionere for general purposes.

Mr. Serjeant to call attention of the
First Lord of the Admiralty to the want of accommodation
for the repair of steam-vessels at Ilan'bowline, and to ask
whether it was the intention o: the government to
provide the same. It was desirable that a dock-
ing establishment should be erected in Ilaulhowlinc.
In conclusion, he moved for a committee to inquire into
the necessity and propriety of establishing the necessary ac-
commodations fur the repair of steam-vessels at Haul-
bowline. _ _

The motion being seconded,
Sir F. T. BARING mid, it was with regret be felt him-
self bound to oppose the motion of the hon. and learned
member for Cork. The question was decidedly one of
money, altogether apart from the consideration whether or
nut un additional naval depot was required. Experience
showed that their present factories or depots were sufficient
for the performance of the duties required of them ; nod,
therefore, on behalf of the government, he should say he
could nut hold out any expectation that the views of the
hon. and learned gentleman would be acceded to.
Mr. E. 11.1tOCHE said, that whilst the government were
prepared to expend two millions of money or. Holyhead, and
a million and a quarter on Devouport, they were determined
not to expend sixpence in improving the ports of Ireland.
Here was the finest harbour in the Queen's dominions
without the means of repairing a single steamer.
Capt. BOLDER° should say, in proof of the want of ac-
commodation in Ireland, that the 12th Lancers, when or-
dered from Ireland to the tape a short time since, had to
be brought to England in the first instance and there em-
barked.
After a brief discussion the house divided: _ _

For the motion lO4
Against it
1101LFIELD ESTATE.

Mr. P. MlLEsaiT,;i7llihepeivni.;slon of the house, he
would now proceed to vindicate the character of his right
rev. relative from the attacks of the hon. gentleman oppo-
site (Mr. llonman). In the first place lie must observe
that Mr. Murray himself said, when prcsied by the hon.
gentleman, that he thought it might be shown that there
was no obligation resting on the bishop, either direct or in-
direct, not to renew the lease. Ile also stated that both
Bishop Grey and Bishop Allen had attempted to renew
the lease, and would have dune so if an advantageous fine
could have been obtained ; the sum offered not being consi-
dered sufficient they had refused. As regarded the case of
Bishop Allen he would refer to the following letter:
'llw bishop his been most hardly treated in this business. The
real points in the case are not many. I know from Mr. Marmont
(Mr. tihadwell's agent) that if Bishop Gray had happened to have
lived a little longer, a renewal of the tease would hare been arranged.
It is not true (as alleged by Mr. Borman) that the negotiation for a
renewal was entered upon on the dropping of one life, and was
beckon uiron the death of two—the facts being that no negotiation
was em entered upon until two lives had dropped. With respect
to Bishop Alien, it is notorious tint, when Bi-hop of Bristol, he felt
himself at liberty to renew the lease (dais can be proved, if neeemary,
by my father, who was very much in Bishop Alien's confidenee, and
bad discussions with him upon the subject), ant we all weal know
that when our present bishop took the see of Bristol, and *Name
rimmed of the endowments, that not a shadow of a condition was
ever expressed or implied that his lordship wen to stand, with respect
to the I lortlead property, on any different tooting from that on which
Is stood with respect to the other mules menus of the pee.
Ile did not think that any moral obligation on the part
of the Bishop of Gloucester not to renew the lease had been
proved, and the Bishop of Gloucester himself, in a letter
which he addressed to the prime minister in July 1818, said
that he was bound by no conditions of that kind.
!lose no time In assuring year la dithip that no Fuca engagement
or understanding as is hoe iusinuated ever took place • nor were
there any other eueditions mentioned or implied, directly or in.
directly, except those which arc detailed by the order in council of
October 1, 1834, by which the see of Gloucester sal Bria:ol wan con-
stituted. and which I . me tit perfect liberty le deal with that
estate as with the other property of the see. Indeed I never beard,
till a tow days ago, that such an opinion as that spoken of by Mr.
Ilersemo, had been breached. Atow me to add, that in offering to
dispose of my interest In this exist- to the ecclesiastical commis.
.beers, my sole motive has been to promote objects of public benefit
end imprommisnt.
The ecclesiastical sommi.sioners also said that there was
no impression on their minds that much an engagement ex-
isted.
Th.y consider the elreameancee of their having entered into& con-
tract to purehate my right of renewal in the I Winch! estate (which,
in toe ',eat of their be:ief in the existence of any such engagement
or understanding, they would not lora been kindled in entertaining),
was by them considered as sudicieutly preying that there was no ins.
presided ea their naiads that ally ouch engagemeua or understanding

Such was the evidence on which he made the statement
he did. The hon. gentleman the member for Bristol did
not refer to any portion of that evidence, but a right rev.
prelate in another place sought to upset the case on what
he called evidence of unirnpeachabl, veracity. The wit-
ness he referred to was Mr. Vincent Stuckey, who the
bishop says, stated that "the two late bishops refused to
renew, because the lessee refused to give the fine they
asked." That was the statement. Now he turned to the
evidence, and he found that the words were, " I understand
that the two late bishops," &e. Ile would ask them
whether the positive testimony of two witnesses was to bo
set aside on the evidence of a person who could
only say that he " understood." Again, Mr. Stuckey
says, " Whatl state comes not front my own knowledge,
hut from others." " The present bishop would not tako
the sum offered for the lease, as I on informed." Thus
every single answer given by this witness of " unimpeach-
able veracity" showed that he knew nothing whatever of
the circumstances of the case. Now, this Mr. Stuckey woe
the person whom the bishop referred to in a letter as a
person who was notorious for his unfriendly feeling towards
the church and churchmen. (" No, no; Mr. Sturge, tho
surveyor.") Well, at all events, it was clear from the evi-
dence he gave that he knew nothing of the circumstances
of the case, for all his evidence was hearsay. Now he
came to the evidence of Mr. Sturp, who was the next wit-
ness quoted by the right rev. prelate in another place. Mr.
Sturge was acquainted with some of the church property in
Bristol, and the right rev. prelate quoted him as a strong
witness on his side; but, if he was so strong a witness in
favour of the Bishop of Gloucester, he mi4lit have been
quoted in his owu language. If he had done so, it would be
found that the " late bishop" alluded to, was Bishop Grey,
and not Bishop Allen. There watt one other evidence, that
of the Bishop of Gloucester himself, who said that, in a
conversation which lie had with Bishop Albin, the latter
told him that he was perfectly at liberty to renew the
lease. lie now came to the correspondtace, which,
it was said, he had erroneously stated com-
menced in 1812, and the existence of which as now de-
nied. The hon. member for Bristol said that his state-
ment on this point was extremely confused, and that it
was impossible to understand what ho meant, and diffi-
cult to conceive where he got his information.
Ilia statement was a very plain one, sod it was amply borne
out by the evidence. lie stated that in 1412 there were
rumours that the Bishop of Gloucester intended to renew
the lease; that the ecclesiastical commissioners being
alarmed, desired their secretary to communicate to kim the
moral obligation which rested upon hint not to renew; and
that the bishop wrote a letter, in which lie stated what
would be the opinion entertained if he dial take that course.
The first inaccuracy was this. lie said that there was a
rumour, and that a communication was made to the bishop
by the secretary of the commission in consequence. N.w the
fact was that between 1812 and 1847 there were two rumours.
There was a rumour in 1812, and a communication was
made at the instance of the ecclesiastical commissioners,

—The hon. member for Coekermouth, when he made state-
ments in that house reflecting on the character of others,
should he particular as to the details. In the present in-
stance the hon. gentleman had made a mistake of no less
than five years in one of his dates, and his whole account
was so confused that he could not imagine where the hon.
gentleman got his information. With regard to the
Horfield estate the facts appeared to be these. In
1848 negotiations were carried on respecting the re-
newal of the lease through Mr. Murray, the secretary to the
ecclesiastical commission. Subsequently to this an offer
was made directly to the bishop by the ecclesiastical com-
missioners asking if he would sell the lease for 11,5001., but
the negotiation was broken off through some legal techni-
calities. From that period to the death of Dr. Shadwell no
steps were taken to bring the matter to a settlement. The
hon. gentleman laid great stress on the bishop giving the
renewal of the lease to his own secretary, and putting in
his children as the lives. Neither was that an accurate
statement, for the lives in the lease were those of the three
royal princesses. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Horeman.)
Then the hon. gentleman laid great stress on the valise of
the estate, which he estimated at between 3,0001. and
4,0001. a year, but its real value was only 5441. Now when
the bishop leased the estate to has own secretory,
he held a living in Northamptonshire worth be-
tween 7001. and 8001. a year, which he gave
up, so that at the present time he had a smaller
income than he had before. The reason why the
Bishop of Gloucester took the course he did in leaving the
Ilorfield estate to his own secretary was, that ho wished to
retain the control of it in his own hands. But he could not
do better than state the bishop's reasons in his own
words. He says:
I. It was no fault of lathe thst tb estate low on each a tenure
nor, if the story of the km, Wag lataationalty left unnamed by my
twors preakereens bad begs ea true es It le =kr need that Mw
he a tle ere melon the bre had Ire ereserelerd. Wire.
ea the lam waspos the wry upper. 1. our the err are I. say
beads I sort arrow le eke it avenable be sorry a sum upon
my dis ere 1w the hirer of smell Or em The law of
her( eta a star my title, no one would hare par-
ch d • Goatiliret lawaeit I therefore lamed It lkit three lives to
my earn , ea • mar of retaining in my own bands the tall
owl satire and direction of all that should be done. They
who eamiumm me Ite so dolag an ern 1 to state what I cart to
hays err a re as I ten see, there were eslythree Noire cares
Wd Mls sos;-4. Witt have haft the ritibeerffli NS it wig, is bad.
elft leemblEM • a IMight bre It kw St
I webs bbe
re kr Ores Ma bra las lest pia I mostyea have tell
the property la
re e beware deledstaler have sepesred
retwerses 4 cry reberd err et rearniks ; sot bevel
were haw bra rear spa srb • title se I seer Mee era ;
erredissrat, drearbe, be. ward have her eat et the lus-
tier bee re Neer ere, theme veer have Wee a still rear
elleis la re Tr of say pid eilialaL err
reel bee ins lee short let ibed—trite wild have Ws
best alleribe la the way of reersireaset—the trim of
the tabbed= king our them Oft d the egsyksielma sad the
Of a kinds maid hew Ferr l 4 MO Mos peffetteakte
Imr =l"in bised N seer bre hese ewe le re err the
empletely Thie seer reemeres erne wee Wit
whir I Ire erred. It wee retry =red ley writ I emir do
ry per le my terear Where, wry views wan star et Ist
the ride jeer. I. the lac I reser that the benstee 4 le.
err eared Mt kr rellPri • Triomf I held
be ermares; I die ajar ampler repair ot the rectory
herb writ beeperdl la he jot tra la I frestrately
ter ere= Sew serrelleer Ute reiwrial ts Into kr, and pro.
rag se* a emellielee the r err roar It eve&
ere Ihr er br esserlisr Bar lbws
="811re Is peeper ate sorireehle rear As Weer
surrei orirevere el Mira Is err re e ems la
creates err. ft Mir Or rears hes pe eyed he re a hrry
sed sew us leer ite he mai( het • tar eel Ms her or
Mate be mete Wart et Oribrob.
_ _

though not by their secretary, with regard to that rumour.
The rumour died away. It was revivtd in 1816 and then
a second communication was made by order of the
commissioners, through their secretary, to the Bishop of
Gloucester. Mr. Murray, the secretary of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, made a communication to Mr. Holt, the
secretary of the bishop, expressiug the wish of the com-
missioners that he would not renew the lease for lives. Ito
(Mr. Ilorsman) therefore did not think that his statement
, was substantially incorrect. lle now came to another
.part
of the evidence. The Bishop of Gloucester himself, in a
letter, denied that he gave any answer but that which ho
(Mr. Humana) had attributed to him. The hon. gentle-
man made no allusion to that letter in reply, and people
were consequently led to believe that his quotations from
that letter were purely a fiction. It had been asserted that
no such letter was in existence, and he had been surprised
at the manner in which the denial had been given. Tho
hon. member then read a quotation from a letter of the
Bishop of Gloucester, which contained the denial, and as-
serted the statement to be a calumny injurious to the bi-
shop's character, and disgraceful to his family; and called
the attention of the house to the ingenuity of the man-
ner in which the denial was conveyed. By the state-
ment that no letter was written by the secretary in 1812
people would be led to inter that no letter at all was written
In 1812 • the letter of the bishop, written frankly and
confidentially, being altogether omitted. Then, from the

He trusted he had now exesserated the Bishop of Glou-
cester from any blame in this transaction. That right rev.
prelate was well known f/or hie great liberality and gene-
rosity. Hie subsoriptione ter church purposes were as
large, if not larger, than these of any bishop who held the
see before. (Cheers.) He did not complain of the harsh
need by the hon. gentleman; but, after what he
ihaff:taagted, he thought the house would be of opinion that
the Bishop of Gloucester would be able, in the words of
the hon. gentleman, " to hold up his head in public as an
honest man." (Cheers.)
Mr. HORSMAH acknowledged that no statement could
be more fair and no criticism less disagreeable than Mr.
Miles's ; but he (Mr. Horsman) had:founded his charges,
which were not confined to a gurgle individual, upon public

• statement _lat the communicatioe was between the solidi-
tors iu 1817, and that no mention was made by them of
moral obligation, it would be inferred that there was no
mention made of moral obligation in 1817 by any one.
The expressions used would lead to the infereuce that
there was no genuine letter in existence. The Bishop
(Oxford) said the idea that this reply was a genuine
document had produced on impression very injurious to the
character of the right rev. prelate., and then he attempted
to show that the basis of the inference being wrong, the
letter itself was not genuine. Well, now, the letter which
had been alluded to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miles),
and which was not referred to by the right rev. prelate an
another place, contained the whole case which he (Mr.
Horsman) made out in his statement the other night. lie
i admitted that when the bishop succeeded to his eithee, thew
was no pledge given ; he admitted that up to that Um°
there was no understanding or moral obligation subsiiting
on the part of the bishop. But whet communicated with
on the subject of the prevalence of a report that he was
about to do so by the Ecclesiastal Commissioners, he en-
tered into reasons why he had not before communicated
with them on the subject, and that showed, at least, the ex-
istence of a moral obligation. His evidence had been
found fault with, but he had quoted it from a blue-book
containing the published evidence of the House of Com-
mons, with the unpublished letter of the Bishop of Glou-
cester to his clergy; and the evidence of the blue-book
ought to outweigh the authority of an unpublished letter
written by the Bishop of Gloucester. Independent of that,
no sense could be made of the sentence as read by the hon.
member—(Mr. Miles)—it was neither English nor common
sense—and, besides, the context explained the real mean-
ing of the letter, so as to avoid all mistake. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member here read the letter, and contended that
it born out his former statement. lie would state ono
word with respect to the omission from the letter which ho
had been frequently accnsed of making in that house.
Evidence hail been given by Mr. Murray before
a committee of the House of Commons; he spoko
in the presence of four Ecclesiastical Commissioners:
he then read from that letter, which had in tho
evidence been laid before the house, and of course known to
the Bishop of Gloucester ; and yet, up to now, after a lapse
of three years, no public denial had ever been given to that
evidence by the bishop. (Hear, hear.) At the end of three
years, when he quoted from that letter, the Bishop of Ox-
ford had stated that it was on his (Mr. Herman's) part an
embellishment and a fiction, tied that he was not justified
in =Wag the statement. (Hear, hear) It was now said
that 31r.lturray was the evil
.genius of the Ecclesiastical
Comnihnion; but, in his opinion, the Ecclesiastical Com-
minutes IRS the evil genius of Mr. Murray. (Laughter.)
This gentleman had entered the service of the commission
with an unblemished reputation ; but ho had been ruined
and debauched by the commission. (Cheers.) Mr. Murray
was their own witness, and an unwilling one, before tho
committee; he was put forward by their direction, ho wag
their confidante, and it was hardly fair now to say that Mr.
Murray was not a creditable witness. (Hear, hear.) He
was willing to admit an inaccuracy in date of one year in
his former statement, but he denied the alleged inaccuracy
of five years, which, if true, could not be made to bear oil
the subject. He came now to 1818, when the Bishop of
Gloucester made an offer of the lease of liorfield to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, stating at the same time that
he had another party who would buy it if they would not.
The offer was referred to a committee. It had been
stated that Sir James Graham was at the head of
that committee, and that there was, therefore, no danger
of the perpetration of a job. He admitted that the pre-
sence of the hon. baronet was a better security against tho
perpetration of a job than the presence of the whole bench
of bishops—(laughter)—but, after all, he thought that the
hon. baronet perhaps only recommended the acceptance of
the offer to prevent the alienation of the estate for a long
term of years. (Hear, hear.) His statement the other night
had been made in the presence of Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners, who had given no reply contradictory of that state-
-1 meat, although they must have been cognisant of all the facts
of the ease. Tho hon. member for Bristol (Mr. Miles) might
I have appealed to them ; they would rot have suffered such
I a charge to pass without contradiction if false, but it was

apparent that hon. gentlemen were not willing individually
to defend promediugs which the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners as a body could not sanction. (Hear, hear.) To
another point he wished to call the special attention of the
Mesa The bishop sold his irate west to the Commissioners
for 11,500!., and asserted that, having lest 3,0001., which he
had advanced as • loan to the college of Bristol, he cons
adored himself justified in applying that pottiest of the
amount to his own use. These was, at the union of the
sees of Gloucester and Bristol, a dispute as to the future
become of the bishop, who returned the united in- 1
seems as being 3,12.1., and a resolution was passed that it
stemma be raised to 5,00 W. The bishop, however, claimed
hie oreamendams in addition, although there was an act
prohibiting the practice. The subject was referred to the
legal arbiters at the commission, who decided that he was
linable to hold his commendains. Yet, after fourteen
the income of the see amounted, instead of li,oooo. to
7,2821. ; and in the year 1818, the very year in which
the bishop stated that he lira 5,0001., and after ultimately
obtaining the oommendams and applying for a canonry in
Lonuon, the income of his we had been 11,1071. In four-
teen years, from episcopal sources alone, the bishop's ex-
cess of income over the 4,0001. provided by act of parlia-
ment, was not less than 3,2001.; and yet he said the lee Of
6,000!. justified the sale of his interest in this estate. Amll
all this might have been prevented under the act of 1861 L
He stated the other day that he thought the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners were wrung in the arrangements which they ,
had made. lie thought they were wrong, in the first
place, in making the stipulation, and also wrong in not
maintaining the commendams with the bishopric, but 1141
thought they were most wrong in not availing themselves
of the clause in the act which invested them with the tem-
poralities of the see of Bristol, when they knew it was the
intention of the bishop to renew the lease. They were per-
fectly justified in saying that if the bishop renewed the team
they would have recourse to an order in council. (Hear.)
Be now same to the moat important point of the ease. On
a previews emasion be stated that the Bishop of Gloucester
had emend the lease for three years, and, as the emu-
mites. appehendial, for the benefit of his own family ; that
he had given the lease to his own secretary, adding M the
mina tine, that lie was informed that the lima were for his
awn children. It, however, appeared that the lease was
for the lives of three of the infunt children of the royal
family. 'f he Bishop of Gloucester had taken the lives of a
family which was naturally one of the longest lived families
in England, therefore speculating en these lives in putting
them into the lease. Ile (Mr. linesman) thought no act was
more unhappy thau the associating the Queen of England,
who was the head of the church, with • transaction which
he considered was most injurimas to it. ()fear, hear) But
he would make no further comment upuu the transaction,
which spoke fur itself, and on which the public would form
their own opinion. This, however, was not the least
unhappy or least discreditable feature which marked the
whole traneartion. The bishop had now taken legal pos-
session of the estate. At this moment, to all intents and
purposes, he had made himself entitled to the estate
during three lives. Then came the question, whether this
was a legal lease. Ile should himself rather doubt its lega-
lity. An order in council was passed, taking the estate
from the we of Gloucester after the decease of tho bishop,
and limiting the benefit of it entirely to his own life, and he
(Mr. Ilorsmaa), therefore, was disposed to think it ex-
tremely doubtful whether the bishop had power to grant a
lease for three lives. (Hear.) Then came another ques-
tion, as to the morality of the transaction. On that point
they hail the bishop's own version of the affair in his letter
to the rural deans. What equivalent did he give up for
the estate of llortield. Ile gave up a living which he
(minuted at worth between ‘oo'. and 8001. • year, but
which might be set down at worth only 5004 -Now the
manor of 'forbid.] contained 1,23.5 acres of land in the im-
mediate vicinity of Bristol, and we, stated by successive
witnesses and by the Bishop of Gloucester among the rest,
to be favourable for building villas and other erections.
The reek rent was upwards of 3,001)!. a-year, end this sum
was further augmented on the death of Dr. Shadwell,
in consequence of tithe rent charges, &c. falling in. Here,
then, he gave up a living of 5001. for the life of a
prelate about 68 years of age, in return for the immediate
possession of an estate for three lives, producing wrack
rent of 30001. a-year, and which perhaps before the
o lives" fell iu, in consequence of holdings being erected
upon it, mighti he worth 30,000/. (Hear, hear.) What
was the value of the bishop's interest inert estate of this kind
taken for three lives? According to Mr. Fiulainsun'e
mode of calculation, • lease conferred fur three limo was
equal to 73 years and a half, and was nearly sufficient
to extinguish the expectancy of an heir. (Wear.) The
Bishop of Gloucester had enfranchised the estate, by which
one-third of the advantages of the enfranchisement eamo
to himself. Here at least they had the fact, that one of the
most valuable estates of the church, which had been taken
possession of by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner under an
order of council, was absolutely at this moment alienated
from it for the period of three lives, by a lease granted by
the Bishop of Gloucester to himself. They had been told that
the Bishop of Gloucester had benevolent intentions with re-
gard to the estate, but even supposing he had, what guarantee
was there as to the proper disposal of the proceeds ? If the
bishop died intestate, it might be said, perhaps, there was a
moral obligation that his heirs should give up the estate;
but they weld not be, compelled to do so, and probably
might say they felt justified in keeping it, out of regard for
the memory of their parent. (A laugh.) Besides, men
often changed their minds, and the mind ova bishop was as
variable as that of others. They had been told that what
the bishop had done was perfectly legal. He admitted its
legality; but more shame to the legislature for making it
so. (Ilear, hear.) It was because legislation for the
church bad' been left to the bishops, that such •
power was allowed to continue as it had done up to
the present time. Still he maintained that moral obliga-
tion had been violated by the transaction. it was
clearly shown that a moral suspicion attached to the act,
because the bishop would not grant the lease to himself.
The legislature swilled originally to have thought the sacred
character of the bishops a sufficient guarantee that the pro-
perty of the church would not be alienated, but in subs*•
quent times, when it was found not to be so, various laws
were passed, restraining and limiting the powers of tho td.
shops. There was first, the 13th of Elizabeth, which al-
luded to the abuses then existing, and the intention of parlias
went with respect to them, and provided that no leases
should be granted beyond 21 years, or for more than three
lives. Then came the act of 1836, which made it compulsory
on the bishops to render a return of their incomes to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But, as he had already
said, they were told that the bishop had benevolent
intentions and designs, though they had not yet been
carried into effect, nor had any one ventured to describe
the character of them. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion,
bishops of the church held their lands and projerty under
the highest morel responsibility. They were expected to
set an example of piety, self-devotion, and indifference to
worldly interests, and tube the teachers and guides of others
in the higher and more important duties of life. A right
rev. prelate the other night, in a debate connected with the
church, said the church was weakened because her divine
mission was forgotten and not acknowledged. lie would
really ask by whom was this forgetfulness displayed?
When—said the honourable gentleman, in conclusion,—
we look at the return recently laid on lia
table, on the motion of my hon. friend (Sir
B. Hall), and the description there given of tho pro-
ceedings in their episcopal arrangements—the scramlilinp:
which there goon—the way in which they take care of each
other—how one is said to get 1,0001. a year more than
another, the one who receives the 1,000!. • year less never
paying in what he is directed to pay—and how those who
receive 3,0001. or 10,000!. • year more than they are entitled
to make no return—when we see the manner in which
three prelates have received in the last fourteen years
a quarter of a million more than the act of
Bement intended they should receive, I say it is
who forget the high mission of tho church. (Loud cheers.
And when we are accused of making attacks on individuals,
I answer it is only by individual example that great abuses
can be exposed and rooted out. (Hear.) On all these occa-
sions it is the church that suffers. (Hear.) We are told we
ought not to attack venerable prelates. (Hear, hear.) Let
me ask this question. Take the quarter of a million which
has gone into the pockets of the three prelates I have
alluded to how many: curates might it not have
provided for ?--to how many poor cottage's might
it not have brought home the blessings of reli-
gious truth ? (Cheers.) And when I am told that the
prelate we are attacking is old and iatrm, I ask what is the
number of poor people old and infirm too who have been
deprived in their last days of the blessings of religious con-
solation—who have seen their children sink into nee, ;their
sons sent to penal settlements—their families dispersed,
criminals and convicts, to the hulks or the gibbet—and
themselves brought down broken-hearted to the grave ?
and how many might have been saved from ruin if that
which was bequeathed for spiritual parpaes by the bene-
volence of our forefathers had aft been, b the bishops
of the established church, diverted them is pur-
poses—if they themselves had not been the imostators, the
robbers, and the plunderers of the gossolbeis It wen their
divine mission to guard, and if deg Waft dems Injustice
to that chunk sad destroyea imeddeseelejat faith of
which they were appal*** Os goariana, of which
they ought to have bees ilha Madam CLIO aeon.)
Mr. GLADSTONE MI artoareled- Shit She honour-
able member would WM 111•111441 OW Ss
Lion of his statement d the other ohne Ws =
mon of the revenues of the sem of Oloomelor sal Ilebtol,
and • violent attack on the bishops pas=
scribing them as robbers devastat sad pl
In 16M the finesses of robber,
see at r wen set
9,3001., se the ken. mamba stated, beg . a year, sub.
Ire
jest to • destostica of MK He lib that the bishop
bad resalved • serplus of WOOL eierlii proper Moons.
Yaw, ho mall not find anything la She means before the
lam which et all justified seek se swertioa. (Hear.) The
somause In 1844 were 3,300/. ; in 1643, 3,4001.; in 1816,
WISSI. ; in 11116. 2,9001.; in 1848, 6,0001. ; in 1849, 4,5001.;
eel be IMO, 3,9001. That was the list for seven years, sad
6 would puzzle the ingenuity of the hon. mambas to mobs
sat frame it the surplus of 31,0001., which he alleged had
been received from the--
Mr. HORSIIAN said he meant from the year UAL •
Mr. GLADSTONE did net think Mr. 11011•111111 meld
viadisehe bh solomeat if be flamisi it oa the basis of the
Skid premoted to Ys- beam. He folly concurred
ebb the Me gentleman so to the duties of the
Hamm seal es to the view which be lea of their position,
hut, eed empeasibllities. H. eimenned with every syl-
lable be had otterei es this subjeet in the ab-
ased. hat Ss woe bassi Se say that our law and
poillisal etroagomeste proomied sa diEsreat ides- and
treppoillens. Ems booft.) An to the miser of Hoolleld,
Es sesotion div(ided buff foto two poiato—b*, wisdom the
Mk" of Glom:edge Wham a course that west for the
Swam of this hose ; amid, secondly, wisest an hon.
member of this lease hod szendeed dae Mirage sod an
is the stobemat which be bed ealmittal to thebrew, owl
is wide ea ewe semisn he had hoes* op the beam to •
very high pitch of feoliog. The has. member had midi,

here is poverty which has bees alienated from tics church.
The his. ostiense bad stated 'settee whisk was very
At he the embleellien of the Weep et Oleneseler, bat the
BLOB* Olooeunse bail eel litogirest halation et
dare what taw bon. le Japans. As tar
as
vri be bad doese,Calauressed ble bid power.
Let an es Math be wads the Siam et elenseitot
hr les vistatien of alsehne fee the Wash et co-.
IlpflaSMS whist Mee ben tbir fueler
wet at de bee of Aweal&i Mass. Ifletever Wait be
nations of the Nay of olsnmbr he seal sat sae that
be was Wend to &elm then ihnlises at the resent me.
mat. Se knew ne mealismea who wishes lesion them.
Übe were to de se. I Weald . deprive Ns of ell faeons,
whatever aet he night sentemplats psehemies as the part
of tbc church. He tbseibt the Bishop et Cliansealsr would
act on his own dime*. It he saw IINININIS VMS to
the church; but it wee ant Me sendona
beforehand merely beams the his had Wrested biabitrl
great power, which yes bid net the slightest Willed.= of
his intending to ahem. H. would state what were the
main allegations of theme of the ben. gentleman according
to the impression they made upon his mind the other night.
The first point was that bishop deep at a certain period before
his death determined to renew the lease of the manor of
Horfield, but to let it nut eat he the benefit
of the church. Tbe hon. gentleman had quoted a letter
to-night, writen by the son of Bishop 'Trey, which declared
that so lately as a few months before his decease au offer
was made to Bishop Grey, which he refused because the
offer was inadequate; and the hon. gentleman had given a
contradiction to his own statement that Bishop Grey had
determined that there should be no renewal of the lease.
The second allegation was that Bishop Orey had been bound
by Lord Melbourne to renew the lease during his incum-
bency. The hon. gentleman had admitted that he had
spoken from presumptive evidence.
Mr. HOIUSMAN-1 did not admit anything of the
kind.

Mr. GLADSTONE had understood the hon. gentleman
to withdraw his allegation on that subject. The hon. gentle-
man, an a former occasion, had spoken of it as a matter
which was not within his personal knowledge. It was, at
all events, a matter beyond reasonable doubt. What the
hon. gentleman had now stated was entirely from inference
and presumption. As to Bishop Allen, what did he say
that Bishop Allen did with the lease of Horfielll He read
a letter in which he said he thought it right that the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners should take the lease of Horfield
into their own hands, but they were not to preju-
dice the personal rights of Bishop Allen—(hear, hear)
—they were to become purchasers of his lease,
as a lessee would have been a purchaser. So that he said
again that the evidence which he had quoted from Bishop
Allen destroyed the hon. gentleman's own statement, be-
cause his statement was that Bishop Allen was determined
to sacrifice his own personal interest, and not to renew the
lease. He (Mr. Gladstone) said, on the contrary, that this
letter showed that he had not an intention to sacrifice his
interest at all. Then the hon. gentleman had referred to a
letter of the bishop, and this reminded him of a remarkable
part of the statement of the hon. gentleman, which had
beet receired:ssith tumultuous cheering. The hon. gen-
tleman said, iss a former occasion, when the secretary to the
Ecclesiastical COUVIII/181017, wrote to the bishop, that the
bishop wrote back that he knew nothing of moral obli-
gations, but meant to stand on his legal rights. Did the
hon. gentleman adhere to that portion of his statement?
Did he understand the hon. gentleman to adhere to that
portion of his statement ?
Mr. HORSMAN.—I adhere to all I said before. I will
not adhere to the right honourable gentleman's representa-
tion of what I said.

Mr. GLADSTONE—It would be open to the hon. gen
tleman or those who agreed with him, to object to his (Mr.
Gladsteine's) misrepresentation. Ile distinctly stated
the lion. (gentleman to have imputed to the bishop in
writing, and in speech that ho did not know anything about
moral rights, but that he intended to stand on his legal
rights. That allegation had totally fallen. Then he under-
stood the hon. gentleman distinctly to state, and that was
another of the capital points in the case, that when arrange-
ments had been made between the ecclesiastical commis-
sioners and the bishop, the arrangement was stopped ut the
last moment in consequence of its being depicted as a job.
Did the hon. gentleman adhere to that portion of his state-
ment ; or hail he nit given up one jot or tittle in support
of that portion of his statement ? And the absence of evi-
dence on this point was an argument not mate-
rial, because the honourable gentleman well knew
that distinct allegations had been made elsewhere ; that
the failure of the arrangement had nothing to do with the
disapproval of its merits, but it had failed simply upon a
technical and legal point. The hon. gentleman knew that
a statement had been made, and the hon. gentleman, in
the course of two hours, had not found himself able to
bring in one tittle in opposition to it. These appeared to
be the most important allegations of the speech of the hon.
gentleman ; and they finished only by the speech he had
delivered to-night. lie hod laboured, and he thought un-
necessarily, in his statement as to the letter of the Bishop of
Gloucester to the rural deans of his diocese. The hon.
gentleman said, that a statement had been made in another
piaci°, to produce the impression that no letter had been
written by Bishop Grey. He assured the hon. gentleman
that he was entirely wrong. Ile had taken his statement
from a report which it was not safe to rely upon. The
statement most distinctly was this, that no letter had been
written by the Bishop of Gloucester of the nature to which
the hon. gentleman had alluded. What was the charge
made by the hon. gentleman es to this letter ? that the
Bishop of Gloucester had written a letter, in which he
treated, as disparaging to himself, the idea that he wet
about to renew the lease. That was the charge made by
the hon. gentleman, but the Bishop of Gloucester did not
treat the idea of renewing the lease as disparaging, that
which the Bishop of Gloucester treated of was merely the
renewal of the lease in the particular form in which he
thought it convenient. Hero were the words of the bishop in
the letter itself. He said he regretted to learn that the
report of his intention to regrant the lease for years of
lives, had been spoken of in terms of condemnation. In
another part he said he had received a letter from a friend,
telling him he had heard of his intention to regrant the
lease on the same tenure. It was said that the renewal of
the lease was that of which the bishop had spoken as dis-
graceful to himself, and therefore that part of the charge
fell away, because the hon.member said he had renewed the
lease, and treated the matter in a manner which was dis-
graceful to himself. If the hon. gentleman thought that
the Bishop of Gloucester was capable of falsifying his letter,
there was the letter, us published by the author, in the
highest terms of authenticity.
Mr. lIGItSMAN—f quoted from the parliamentary
blue-book. . _ _

GIADSTONE —He was speaking of the hon.
gentleman's statement. This statement was that the Bishop
of Gloucester had treated as disgraceful and driparaging to ,
himself a report that he was going to renew the lease. Ho ,
said the statemeut was that he treated as disgraceful •
report that he was going to renew the lease fur lives upon ,
that particular tenure. It might be said that they objected
to the bishop having a joint power of lessor and lessee. ,
That was entirely a different case. As far as he had been
able to follow the statement of the hon. gentleman,
he had entirely. failed in proving his own case with
regard to the imputation which he threw upon the
Bishop of Gloucester. The case of the Bishop of
Gloucester, as he uademased it, was this : he had made use
of rights which he possemsd in common with every other
oceissinslisal proprietor. Tee might say that ecclesiastical
privet/ seed not to poems such right, ; that was open to
oppeesmie to allege, bat lee said that opinion upon the
merle of the system wee case thing, and misrepresenting
and mhusistnnag the esedact of a man who acted under
the epolem, was eareher matter altogether. As far as a
dlMimaYsm'esti ha takes between Horlield and the acts of
seeleilmeisel proprietom ia general, he said that the dis-
timid= wee in favour of the ishop of Gloucester. He had
bees new with munificent intentions towards the church.
He bed a perfect confidence in his worth and in his honour;
sad ia his belief the bishop did not intend to act upon the
peisoiples which he had laid down ; but he had dotingly
ststsi that he thought it was his duty to make the lease
seleavisat to the interests and purposes of the church. In
the *et as respected the fine to be taken on the renewal of
the loses,; it met with favour from the ecclesiastical com-
seleshimen. Each ecclesiastical commissioner had described
it as liberal, demanding acknowledgement on se-
alant of its liberality. 'Then as to destination which
it was intended to give to the money to be
received, it seemed perfectly clear that the intention of
the Bishop of Gloucester wan, that he bound himself,
in this printed paper which he had addressed to his clergy,
to apply the greater part of whatever money he might re-
ceive for the renewal of the lease to the very purposes
which the hon. gentleman considered so desirable to pro-
mote, viz., the augmentation of small livings, and to the
maintenance of higher stipends to the poorer clergy of his
diocese. He hoped these thirty would be recollected, that
the generosity of those intentions which the Bishop of
Gloucester was proved to have entertained at a certain
period, would not be taken to be mere acts of hypocrisy on
his part. As the hon. gentleman and the house also looked
to the good of the church, he hoped that they would exercise
that care in ascertaining all the details which was to con-
ducive to the public interest, and so compatible with the
dignity of their own characters as members of the house.
Mr. HORSMAN observed, that as to the Bishop of
Gloucester having made ostentatious as to what his after
receipts would be, they showed that if he were allowed to
hold commenerlarru, ho had received 6,000/. over and above
the calculations which be bed previously given.
Mr J. GRAHAM said that he was not in the least'''.
peas& when ho entered the house this evening, to join in
this debate, and he was net sure that it was for the public
Wawa that it should be prolonged. Ha was afraid that Ida
leaMmightbemlmssereed; at all events silence under these
ebeameteaseee, would not be expected from him. In the
Mt elate he would wish to observe, that he was not a
of the ectlesiutical commission of 1845, and
therehre be bed not directed his attention to transactions
of tie emeestelea of es eateesibmt date. He wished also
46111.1111 that be bed ibmiteetly, on former occasions, ex-
primaa Wm. apielea dot the law with regard to the
embelastkel emeedeska, gad the amendments of the last
meek" wee% is his Welds lodgment, in a satisfactory
state. He NUM, of the distinction between
the episcopal bed aced the ammoa fund, and had always
dieser that the 'Bewares hr 7 years to receive a
gives sum, whether raves er =see slant disadvan
arrimgemeat both to he themselves and the
of the clinch. meld have wished that there
might have bees sear hetwarance in canvassing pest
anorresests sod the erns Incident to an arrangement
whisk la lie jambeemet, was inexpedient. He had no ac•
sprirlimes milk Si Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, ex-
cept inniti=iseestas IS INN from intercourse at the
be of they WINO smamon members ; but as a
tessaber of the shed of Inland, he must my that he
Vways heed the WA, ooffGlourester an accomplished
aabaisr, a emelores et high reputation--above all, he
111111 my by bed always considered him sot niggardly