The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-02 00:00:00

by what he bad given, but by what he had retained. And
if he had retained 40,0001. to himself after having said that
10,000 should content all future bishops, then he (Mr.
Horsman) should be disposed to express a very different
opinion. Hie hon. friend near him had said that greater
' abuses could be shown than he felt justified in
publicly stating, and bringing before that house. But he
(Mr. Horseman) would give an instance of a very flagrant
kind which existed at this time. He would state an oc-
currence which he thought required some explanation, and
which even after the statements of the noble lord, and the
strong representations made by his honourable friends near
Innt, he ventured to say the house would pronounce to he
see of the most extraordinary proceedings that hail
ever been sanctioned by any public assembly. Such
en enquiry as that proposed by his honourable friend
win the only way to arrive at such facts. The right
bon. gentleman had been very severe upon him in respect
M a case upon which he had put a question to the noble
lord—the case of Horfield—one he had brought forward on
more than one occasion without success. The ease of Hoc-
field was this—an estate near the city of Bristol was let on
a lease of three lives by the then Bishop of Bristol in 1817.
Two of the lives dropped in In3l, in the time of Bishop
Grey. Lie did nut renew the lease. When the first
life dropped he intended to renew it, but could not come
to term+ with the lessee ; and he then said he would
not renew it at all, and declared that he would let that
estate fall in, rather than benefit his own family be the
fines. Bishop Grey shortly afterwards died, and Bishop
Allen succeeded to the see of Bristol. When the deter-
mination of Bishop Grey was made known to Lord Mel-
bourne, that noble lord said to Mr. Allen, with respect to
the estate of Horfield, that as Bishop Grey had not re•
newed the lease, Mr. Allen must follow his ex-
ample, or he would not present hint to the bishopric.
Mr. Allen gave a pledge to Lord Melbourne that
he would fulfil the intentions of his predecessor, and he
was translated front that see in 1830, when he wrote a
letter which was left on record, and from which an extract
was read before the committee, in which his opinion was
set forth that, in accordance with the desire of Bishop
Grey, the estate ought to be allowed to lapse. After
the translation of Bishop Allen, the new bishop took pos-
session of the united secs of Gloucester and Bristol
in 1836. Therefore, it was then understood that the lease
had not been renewed, and it was understoon by the
commissioners that it would not be renewed. Nothing was
done from 1830 to 1812, when the old person, who was the
sole remaining life, was taken ill, and it was rumoured
that the bishop, Dr. Shailwell, was about to renew the
lease, and a letter was written to hint by the commis-
sioners expressing their hope that this report was not
correct. The reply of the bishop was to the effect that he
felt insulted by the suspicion against him—that if he re-
newed the lease he should be a disgrace to the bench of
bishops and a lasting reproach to his family ; and he said
he was sorry he could be supposed capable of acting so
apart—and here the extract broke off. The commissioners
replied, and expressed their regret for having wounded his
feelings, and apologised for their first letter. This was in 1812.
In 1817 the commissioners had to make an arrangement
about the future income of the see, and finding that it
would be richer than was necessary, they determined on
taking possession of Hortield, and passed it to the ecclesias-
tical commissioners at the next vacancy. At the com-

....,,cement of 1848 they received a eonno._,ation from the
Bishop of Gloucester, telling them it was his intention to
renew the lease, and giving them the refusal of it on pay-
ing down a sum of 11,500/. (Hear, hear.) They wrote to
espostulate, urging the moral obligation. The bishop's
answer was that he knew nothing of moral obligation—
(hear, hear)—be had a legal right to renew the lease, and
should do so, and thereby alienate the property from the
church. unless the commissioners consented to the payment
named. They did o, and wished to conduct the business in a
secret way, but their attorney, Mr. Buggies, would not carry
out the treaty because it required an order in council. It was
within twenty-four hours of being completed when the
facts came to light ; he brought them before the house ; and
the government, he was happy to say, had refused to ratify
the agreement. (Hear.) But the worst was to come. Last
year Dr. Sluulwell hod died. Now, they had it on positive
record that the Bishop of Gloucester had renewed that
lease, his own secretary being the lessee, and his children
the lives put in, (Hear, hear.) Was there any other de-
ent in which such a transaction would be permitted ?
ould any one but a dignitary of the church have dared to
perpetrate such a thing ?'The bishop was convicted on his
town evidence, having declared that he should be ashamed
to be suspected of such a thing. Mr. Finlayson had stated
that putting three new lives into a lease took away 90 per
cent. of tho value of the pr9perty. (hear, hear.) Ile was
thankful to the noble lord for having brought forward
this motion. On all questions affecting the church there
had of late years been a creditable unanimity both
in the house and in the country ; and the feeling
out of doors would soon enforce either a reformed episcopate
and church establishment, or none at all, anal men would
make up their minds to have religion independent of en
establishment rather an establishment administered so as to
be indepeadent of religion. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. GOCLISURN said a few words in explanation,
which were received with loud cries of " llortield," the
right hen. gentleman not alluding to that subject.
Mr. WltiltAM prot,sted against the injustice of bring-
ing these charges against individuals without notice, and
which tended to draw the house into a collateral ilisetnsion.
If Lord Itlandford did not think his object was tufficiently
answered by the opinions elicited by his motion, he should
vote with him. . .

Mr. BOOKER urged the house to suspend its opinion
respecting the Bishop of Gloucester, whose character afforded
a strong presumption ugain.t the charge prekrred by Mr.
•• -

The Marquis of BLANDFORD replied, and expressed a
wish that the hon. member for Montrose would not persist
in moving his amendment in conjunction with the motion
submitted by him.
Mr. HL ME said that, as he was anxious to forward the
object of the noble lord, he would withdraw his amend-
ment for the present. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY said that, as the government were not
pledged to introduce any measure by the proposition then
before the house, he would not put hon. members to the
trouble of dividing. (Hear, hear.)
The resolution was then agreed to without a division.
NATIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Mr. 111.:1E postponed his motion on this subject to
Tuesday, the Bth inst.