The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-09 00:00:00

TO THI =MOS Or THZ Ti IS.

at preeeni on the Continent for the
recovery of my Ysailk, I have only just read in the Timm
of July 2 the violent attack made upon me by Mr. Hous-
man, l the Mom Ceosimens, the peeeeding day.
As the almuuMer etu Wisp is a matter of public interest,
and ea it twee be awned without injury to the church
of which he is a chief pastor, I hope you will comply with ,I
my request to give immediate insertion to this letter.
I declare that every assertion attributed to Mr. Herman
respecting the estate of llordeld Manor, in which I am con-
cerned, is either directly untrue or is so distorted from the
truth ea to convey to the house an impression opposite to
that which the facts, if fairly stated, would have produced.
In the first place, it is asserted that Bishop Allen, the last
diocesan of Bristol, received the see under a pledge given to
Lord Melbourne that he would not renew the lease of HOT-
field. This statement is the very reverse of truth. Lord
Melbourne, to whom the circumstances of the lease had
been made known from another quarter, expressly told the
bishop that he was at liberty to lease his estate as other
bishops had done. This tact I heard from Bishop Allen
himself, who accordingly was in treaty for the renews]; but
before that could bu acted he was translated to Ely. The
letter which he wrote to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners

when Bishop of Ely, in which llortield is mentioned, implies
only that had he been consulted about the arrangements to
be made for his successor (being offended at the omission),
he should have advised that Hurfield, the immediate lapse of
which was expected, should be devoted to the expense of a
new episcopal residence in place of that destroyed in the
Bristol riots; nor has that letter any bearing upon the
matter which Mr. Busman wishes it to prove.
On the union of the sees of Gloucester and Bristol 15
years ago, the estate of Ilerfield Manor came intomy hands
perfectly free from any engagement or understanding which
distinguishes it from the other property of the see. The
idea of altering its circumstances with a view to public im-
provement I believe to have originated with myself. Being
contiguous to the city of Bristol, it presented a favourable
site for the erection of villas, but the nature of the tenure
of copyhold land, held under a Lord Farmer, wawa constant
obstacle to building, as well u other improvements. As
the lease depended upon a single life, advanced in years,
I conceived the idea of effecting a great public benefit to
the city and neighbourhood by arrangement either under
• private bill or by the Long Leasing Act. I therefore
declined all overtures to lease on the old touting, though
well aware that I was risking the loss of all advantage from
the estate to which I was entitled.

Mr. Horsman story of the communications between the
ecclesiastical commissioners and myself in 1842, upon llor-
held, is a fiction. The first time that 1 heard of their having
had this property in their consideration was in December,
1846 (the Ember week), when 1 learnt that withoutnaming
the matter to me, in disregard both of courtesy and prac-
tice they had determined to take this estate into their own
115'11;1s—a measure of which there had been no example in
their previous proceedings. My letter, which Mr. Horsman '
attributes to 1842, was subsequently to this appropriation (1
believe in February or March, 184,), caused, nut as he says,
by a letter from the commissioners, but by a most offensive
verbal communication made by Mr. C. E. Murray, their
late secretary, to my secretary, Mr. Holt, endeavouring
to extort from him my intentions respecting the property.
Under feelings of silence, I wrote a reply which, notwith-
standing Mr. liorsman's misquotations of it. contents, I
detect to be the one assigned by him to 1842, from the ludi-
crous blunder of Mr. Murray, who, though secretary to a
learned commission, bad not sufficient acquaintance with
the English language to know that the word " very " may
be used synouyinuusly with "identical," and finding it
joined by me with a substantive, said, in a critical note,
which he put in print, that a word seems to have been left
out. The " blank left fur a word " is an embellishment by
Mr. Horsman. His speezh proceeds—
" Under these circumstances the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners were surprised, at the commencement of 1848, by
receiving • communication from the Bishop of Gloucester,
stating his intention to renew the lease, and giving them
the refusal of it for the sum of 11,601/1. The Ecclesiastical

Commissiouers desired their secretary to write to the bishop
reminding him of the moral obligation he was under not to
renew the lease. The bishop answered that he knew
nothing of moral obligations; that he had a legal right;
and if the commissioners did not choose to pay hint 11,00 th
he would renew the lease, and alienate the property from
the church."

1
With the exception of the fact of an offer being made to
transfer my interest to the commissions, every word of this
sentence also is pure fiction. The ptin tact is, that an
overture had been made, and a specific fine offered me, for a
new lease of the estate. 1 was wishing for a considerable
time to carry out au object of diocesan improvement which
1 bad much at heart; anal it struck me that an opportunity
was offered for combining three objects—the improvement
of Hurtleld, the benefit to the funds of the conunissien,
and the erection of parsonages in small livings. It had been
intimated to mu that the conunisieners were desirous of

such an arrangement. 1 therefore proposed to asf.ign them
my whole interest on terms somewhat more favourable to
them, having previously broken off the negotiation for re-
newal. For my conduct in this transaction, 1 rewired the
handsomest thanks of tho board. That the arm:p:meld

dial nut take effect is n matter in which 1 do not feel myself
concerned. It dues deeply concern those officers of the emu-
mission thruugh whom certain technical words had been in-
troduced into an Order in Council, which led the law
officers of the Crown to doubt the legality of the transaction.
I am sorry to have to recur to a most unworthy subject, the
late secretary, and I think the evil genius of the commis-
sion. Just at the time mentioned he was examined in evi-
dence
before a committee of the 11011110 of Commons, when
he first broached the notion of my Ming prevented by some
engagement, or understanding, or moral obligation (for he
varied the words) from leasing Llorfield like other estates.
This opinion he had never hinted to the board on any of the
various occasions when he was present at discussions respect-
ing the purchase; and when pressed fur the grounds of his
opinion, alter much prevarication, he could produce none.
Nevertheless, it is to his insinuations that I trace Mr. Bon-
' man's authority for this onslaught.
In 1849, a short time after a mutual release from the
agreement had Leen executed by the commissioners and
myself, the lease expired by the death of the remaining life,
and I found myself in the full possession of this property,
consisting partly of land in possession, partly copyholds,
and partly rent charge. I immediately resolved to resign
• piece of preferment which I held in ronamoularos of about
the same yearly income as llorfield—an act perfectly spon-
taneous en my part. I had then three greatobjects in view,
which were anything but selfish in their nature. I wished
to commute the manurial rights fur land—to set an example
to the parish of effectual draining and other agricul-
tural improvements—and to provide for the future
augmentation of the living by giving to it prospec-
tively the tithe rent charge. All these objects could
be accomplished by a lease, of which I myself might
retain the control ; and, as I understood sad still
understand this matter, they could have been attained in
no other way than by a lease, the two first requiring a large
expenditure of money, and the time when the third might
take effect being uncertain. I did, therefore, grant a lease
for three lives (though not of my own children), to my se-
cretary. Besides the motives stated there was a sort of
necessity for such a step, arising from the iminuatiens
broached by Mr. Murray. When the power of carrying
out my avowed objects was in my hands, had I hesitated to
grant • lease it would have been believed that there was
ground fur the idea that I was withheld by some myste-
rious cause from leasing this estate, and I should have
been thus exposed to the vile suspicion of having proposed
to sell to the commissioners • right which 1 could not have
exercised.

I am very sorry to have troubled you with so longaletter,
but some excuse must be made for a person who finds that
which he revues must on earth wantonly attacked. To my
character alone I am indebted for the station which I hold ;
and I feel conscious of having done nothing to tarnish that
character.

Ilic mums ahenens tato;
Nil coinage sibt, aullu pall, were cut*
I have the honour to be, sir, your faithful servant,
J. 11. GLOUCESfER and BRISTOL.

P.S. Up to the present moment I have received no emo-
lument from 'iodicld beyond 36!. reserved rent. The
draining has been carried on to a considerable extent and
the enfrauchisemtmt is in full progress.

The Daily News, with reference to the foregoing,
observes:

The Bishop of BRISTOL and GLOUCESTER has re-
plied to Mr. HORSMAN, and his reply is inserted is
another column.

The charge against the Bishop substantially was,
that he had renewed for his own advantage the
lease of Horfield manor, contrary to his own indignant
repudiation that he had any intention of doing so,
against the wishes of the Ecclesiastical Commission,
and at a sacrifice of the interests of the see as viewed
by his two immediate predecessors.
In the Bishop's reply, he talks largely, of Mr.
HORS3I VI distorting the truth, of Mr. C. K.
yiva-
RAY being the evil genius of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission, and of Bishop ALLEN having given an
opinion about Horfield, and against the use he has
turned it to when offended. But he does not at all
relieve himself of the serious imputations that attach
to his dealing with that estate.
Bishop GRAY could have renewed, to his pecuniary
gain, the lives which in his time had dropped in
the then existing lease ; but he did not. Bishop
ALLEN could have done the same to his still larger
profit ; but he would not. And in their incumbencies
the see of Bristol was poor and unproductive to the
Bishops. Yet they restrained themselves from in-
juring their successors and the Church by benefiting
themselves. Their policy was to run the lease out,
that those who followed them might by their self-
denial gain.
What they refused to do in their comparative po-
verty, Bishop MONK has done in his notorious wealth.
He has renewed the lease after all the lives had
dropped in ; though, not in name, in reality be has
made the grant to himself; and, to benefit hL family,
he is now laying out its income in the improvement
of the estate.

Need we say more? Rather, can we say more P
Just in proportion as Bishop MONK and his
after his decease, profit by this lease, will the Church