The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-05 00:00:00

CHAPEL.

The Earl of RADNOR said that he had given notice of his
intention to make some remarks on the statement made to their
Lordships relative to the conduct of his Noble Friend the Duke
of Somerset, who was unable to attend in his place. The
attack had been made upon the Noble Duke without any
notice, and he had therefore had no means of answering it
himself, or of asking any friend to reply to it. The charge
made against the Noble Duke was for violating an express
engagement with respect to the endowment of the chapel at
Bishopstown ; and the history of the transaction was this
Duke of Somerset had considerable possessions in the
county of Devon, in part of which there was need of addi-
tional church accommodation. In the course of the year 1832
the Duke of Somerset built this chapel for the purpose of
accommodating the population. It was completed in the
spring of that year, and was inspected in the course of
the summer by the Duke and the Bishop of Exeter. Some
communication took place between them as to the consecra-
tion, and the intention of the Duke to make an endowment.
The consequence was, that early in the month of August the
Duke entered into an arrangement with Mr. Shore to do the
duty. and agreed to give him a remuneration of 2001. Some
doubts arose on the question of preferment, and the chapel
was not then opened. Communications subsequently took
place been Mr. Moberly, the Duke's solicitor, and the
secretary of the Bishop; three or four letters passed, and
without any endowment taking place, and without the conse-
cration of, the chapel, the Bishop granted a title to Mr. Shore,
who was duly nominated by the then incumbent of the living,
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards afterwards died, and a gentle-
man named Brown succeeded him, and continued to hold the
living till 1844, Mr. Shore during all that time doing the duty
of the chapel, and no difficulty arising. In the summer of
1844 Mr. Brown entered into an arrangement with a Mr.
Cozens, who came in July to reside on the incumbency, and
objected to Mr. Shore's doing the duty, and refused to nomi-
nate him ; and the Bishop thereupon refused to grant a license.
Some judicial proceedings took place, and ultimately the
chapel was licensed under the statute, and the chapel was
opened for the performance of religious services according
to the doctrines and liturgy cf the Established Church.
The incumbent proceeded against Mr. shore in the
Ecclesiastical Court ; but still the chapel hall continued
open to the present time, and the services had been per-
formed to the great satisfaction of the congregation. The
Duke was accused of bad faith in having violated a-- specific
engagement entered into by him never to allow the chapel
to be used for t.ther purposes than those of the Church of
England, and secondly to endow it ; for the Bishop said that
when he licensed the chapel there was a positive engagement to
endow it. Now, with, respect to the first point, he did not
see, on reference to the act, that it was necessary a chapel
should be a Dissenting place of worship because it was licensed
under the Act. The certificate under which it was opened
was granted by the archdeacon, and the registrar objected that
it did not specify the place to be a Dissenting chapel, but the
opinion of Mr., now Mr. Justice Erle, was taken upon the
subject, and be was of opinion that it was not necessary to de-
clare it to be a Dissenting place of worship because it was
licensed under the Act. In point of fact, however, it had not
been used as a Dissenting place of worship, for it was used for
the services and the sacraments according to the rites of the
Church of England. But the principal accusation was, that
the Noble Duke had forfeited his engagement that he would
endow the chapel ; and to show the groundlessness of that
charge, the Noble Earl read the correspondence which had
taken place between 11r. Moberly, the solicitor of the Duke,
and the Bishop's secretary, in which the Duke had no doubt
stated his wish to make an endowment ; but, as some difficul-
ties might arise as to the patronage and other matters, made no
pledge upon the subject. The Noble Earl then read the fol-
lowing correspondence:—

" Bedford-row, Sept. 12, 18:32,

" Sir,—l begin to apprehend that the mutual object of the
Duke of Somerset and the Bishop of Exeter will not be at-
tainable hut through the medium of the Church Building
Commissioners. It will require some consideration to deter-
mine what proposition to lay before them on the subject. It
may also turn out that the Duke's apprehension of its being
necessary to let the twelvemonth go round is well-founded ;
and this would be so much waste time, for the chapel is ready,
I believe. It seems to me also that it might assist the Duke
in determining definitively what he might be inclined to do
relative to an endowment, &c., if an experiment could be first
made how the chapel is likely to answer. Under these con-
siderations I should beg to suggest that it would be better to
request of the Bishop, in the first instance, a license as if it
were a proprietory chapel only, which need not by any means
imply thereby that the idea of endowment and consecration is
abandoned. The opening of the chapel in this way will, in
the course of a few months, probably enable the Duke to judge
what may be the best arrangement to propose for the ultimate
adjustment—l am, &c.,

" JOSEPH MABERLY."

To this letter Mr. Barnes replied :
" Sir,—l have taken the earliest opportunity of laying be-
fore the Bishop your letter of the 12tr.. The Bishop directs
me to say that the Duke of Somerset having stated his wish
and purpose to endow the chapel, and to convey the same for
consecration, the Bishop will license the chapel till that
purpose can be carried fully into effect. The Bishop has further
directed me that, having himself seen the chapel, he dis-
penses with the issuing of any previous commission of inquiry.
It is only necessary, therefore. that the Duke should sign a
petition t ) grant the license, and I will draw a form and send
it to you, For this purpose you will be good enough to direct
a plan of the chapel to be furnished, showing; he ground plan
and scaling, &c., and be good enough to gve me the most
concise statement possible as to the title—that the Duke is
tenant in fee of what other estate--I
"RALPH BARNES."
On receiving, this letter, Mr. Maberly wrote, on the 22d of
September, as follows :
" Sir,—l beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favour,
which, with your request of a plan, &c., I wilLimrned•ately
communicate to his Grace, and I doubt not that I shall be
commissioned to return his Grace's thanks to the Bishop
and yourself for your obliging attention. I write, however, in
consequence of some expressions in your letter, and to pre-
vent all possibility of any future misunderstanding, unlikely
as it may be, to arise. 1 think that the communication of
the Bishop's consent to license is accompanied by words from
you, that, if unqualified and unexplained, would amount to
an implied engagement on the part of the Duke, at all events,
and under any circumstances, and with whatever incon-
veniences attended, still
.peremptorily, to endow and convey
the chapel for consecration. As the Duke is a man who
would be scrupulous to the letter in the performance of
every iota of what he could be considered, either directly or
by implication, to have engaged for, it becomes the more
necessary for me to take care that his Grace does not lay
himself under any obligation calculated, by any possibility,
to bring him into a dilemma. It is his Grace's most
serious and determined intention and wish to do his best,
through the medium of the Church Commissioners or other-
wise, to procure the consecration of his chapel, and to make
for it a permanent regular endowment of proper amount.
With the expression of this intention the Bishop will, 1
doubt not, knowing his Grace's attachment to the Establish-
ment, feel satisfied and rest contented. But it is possible
that there may be impediments, unlooked-for requisi-
tions, objections made, interference with patronage, or
- the like, that may make it unadvisable, in the view of
his Grace, or of any reasonable man, to proceed to the
conveyance for consecration, and may rather induce his Grace
to wish to wait till some further legislative regulations afford
better facilities, or remove difficulties that may in the present
state of the law exist. I mu,t, therefore, claim for his Grace
a discretion in these matters beyond what your words convey.
That the Bishop is content that the Duke should have this I do
not doubt, nor do I think that you meant to imply to the con-
trary; but if you read again your words, I think you will find that
the qualification is necessary which I have here taken the liberty
to make. I will send you the plan, &c., as soon as I receive
it, and shall be obliged by the form of the petition you propose
to tend me.-1 am, &c. " JOSEPH MABERLY.°
Mr. Barnes replied to Mr. Maberly
"Exeter,
upon
.Exeter, Sept.
Sir,—l have consulted the Bisshyon 25r1ejtelr83o2f ;he
22d. The Bishop's authority, as stated in my letter of the 10th,
was founded correctly, his Lordship thinks, on the previous
communication ; but the Bishop, on perusing your letter,'
authorises me to say that he is content to license the building
on the declaration therein contained. I shall be glad to give
every dispatch to the business on your furnishing me with the
matter mentioned in my former letter.-1 am, Bcc.
" RALPH BARNES."

The Noble Earl conclUded by contending that the Duke of
Somerset never had entered into any contract to endow the
chapel in question.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said, that he had never
heard of the difference which had arisen between the Duke of
Somerset and the Bishop of Exeter until he received a letter
from the Bishop of Exeter on the subject. As he wished to
occupy the attention of their Lordships for the shortest pos-
sible time, he should confine what he had to say to the fewest
possible words, and therefore he should proceed at once to lay
before them the letter which he had received from his Right
Rev. Friend :

.4 Bishopstowe, Aug. 1, 1846.
" My dear Lord,—Lord Radnor having informed me that
it is his intention to bring forward a discussion respecting a
statement made by me in the House of Lords on the 2. of
J une last, on occasion of the presentation of a petition
from the Rev. James Shore, which statement his Lordship
considers as having cast an imputation of bad faith on the
Duke of Somerset, I request you to ask for me the indul-
gence of the House (as was recently accorded to the Arch-
bishop of Dublin) in permitting me, in this letter to your
Lordship, to state the reasons which prevent me from
attending in my place when the discussion shall come forward.
Those reasons are stated in a letter which I wrote on the 28th
ult. to Lord Radnor, a copy of which I request you to read to
the House, as well as a copy of the letter to Lord Seymour,
referred to in mine to Lord Radnor, and of Lord Seymour's
answer to me, all of which I now enclose. I further
request you to state to the House, after reading that answer,
that the newspaper transmitted by me was the Western Times,
of Saturday, the 25th ult., that it was put into the envelope
in my presence by my solicitor, in his own office ;
that it was sealed by him, and put into the post-office
at Exeter by him ; that my solicitor took the pre-
caution of marking the copy of the Western Times, so
placed by him in the envelope, with my letter ad-
dressed to Lord Seymour ; and that he and his clerk
declare, and will be ready to testify, that neither of
them ever had in his possession a Gloucester Journal,
Ater, to the best of Their reccllection, ever saw one—
SliArtlaiat it was, therefore, absolutely impossible that such a paper
111-tlq have been inserted in the envelope before it was
put, into the post•office at Exeter. I will add, that I
myself have not for many years had in my possession, nor even
teen a* Gloucester paper ; that I could not, therefore, have
i.P'•''i'l•!• Y- ;I.4l:ransatitted such a paper to Lord Seymour.
*Ye.o. • - " I am, my dear Lord, sours most faithfully,
i
s`zo.W' "H. EXETER.
Si_L: :. j?..„.<,14 The Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop
• of Bath and Wells.
zu
" P.S. I think it right to add one or two brief passages
-from the reported speech of Lord Seymour, on which I offered
.to meet him before a jury ;---‘ lie (the Bishop of Exeter) rose

calmly and deliberately to make this statement. It is a calm,
deliberate, collected statement, and I proceed to show you that
that that calm. deliberate, and emphatic statement is a delibe-
rate falsehood.' Again, Therefore he (the Bishop) not only
made a charge diametrica ly contrary to the truth ; but he
masde a malicious charge, for the purpose of giving a false im-
putation to the individual in question.'"
This was the letter which he had received. Now, with the
permission of the House, he should read the copy of a letter
addressed by the Bishop of Exeter to the Noble Earl near him
who had just addressed the House
" Bishopstowe, Torquay, July 28, 1846.
" My Lord,— Being in Exeter this day, I have received the
letter of yesterday's date with which your Lordship has ho-
noured me, intimating your intention of making a statement
in the House of Lords, at the desire of his Grace the Duke of
Somerset, in order ' to remove the imputation of bad faith
which, in my speech of the 23d of June, I cast upon him.'
I thank your Lordship for saying that you should be unwilling
that this should be done in my absence,' and expressing your
hope that I will let you know, at my earliest convenien' e,
what day will suit me to be in the House.' It would have
given me very great satisfaction to have availed myself of your
Lordship's courteous and candid proposition, had not circum-
stances occurred which have rendered it imperative on me to
forbear at present from personally bearing part in the dis•
cussion. Those circumstances are, indeed, such as may
possibly induce your Lordship to reconsider your purpose of
dealing with the matter at present in the House of Lords.
They are as follows : —Lord Seymour, who, as the Duke's
eldest son, must be considered by me as having acted in
such a matter with the cognizance and approbation of his
father, recently called a public meeting, which was holden
on Tuesday, the 21st inst., at the Mayoralty Room, Totnes,
(the Mayor presiding), by a hand bill, stating, that Lord
Seymour would address his constituents, and at the same time
correct certain statements which had been made respecting the
chapel at Bridgetown.' At this meeting the speech of Lord
Seymour was of such a character as compelled me to write to
him a letter, a copy of which I have the honour to enclose, to-
gether with the newspaper, in which the report of it (which is
generally, as I hear, understood to be accurate) was given to
the world. I have also directed that a Bill of indictment be
preferred at the Exeter Assises, now in progress, against the
editor of the newspaper, for his peculiar share in the publica-
tion. As I shall present myself as a witness in the prosecu-
tion of the indictment, in order that I may be submitted to
cross-examination upon oath relative to the facts of the case, I
feel that I ought not to yield (as my first impression was to
yield) to the temptation of bearing part in the discussion
which your Lordship has informed me it is your intention to
introduce in the House of Lords.
" I have the honour to be, my Lord,
" Your Lordship's obedient servant,
" The Earl of Radnor. " H. EXETER.
" P. S. If your Lordship should continue in the intention
of making your statement, I would request that you will give
me as early notice of the day as possible, and that it be not
earlier than Tuesday next (a day which your letter permits me
to name), in order that I may request some friends to attend
and report to me the purport of what your Lordship shall say."
He should next proceed to lay before their Lordships a caoy
of a letter addressed by the Bishop of Exeter to Lord
Seymour

" Bishopstowe, Torquay, July 28, 1846.
" My Lord,—My attention has beer. called to the report of
the proceedings of a public meeting holden at Totnes on
Tuesday last, and especially of a speech therein stated to
have been delivered by your Lordship on that occasion.
I now send to your Lordship a copy of the newspaper, the
Western Times, of Saturday, the 25th inst., in which the re-
port is given. The sentiments and tone ascribed to your
Lordship in the reported speech are such as forbid all remark
or comment on my part. But I have no hesitation in
making to your Lordship a proposition, which I am bound
to suppose will not be lightly rejected,—that your Lordship
shall either deny the general accuracy of the report, or if it be,
in the main part of it, accurate, that you make such admission
of its accuracy as shall put me in a position to call on you to
justify the speech, as reported, and prove the truth of its main
allegations before a jury of our country.—l am, y Lord, your
Lordship's obedient servant, " H. EXETER.
" The Lord Seymour.
" P.S. I request your Lordship to return to me the news-
paper which I now send, with any statement which your Lord-
ship may think fit."
The answer return,d by Lord Seymour he should read, as the
last document he should lay before them :
Spring-gardens, Wednesday, July 29, 1846.
" Lord Seymour declines all communication with the Bishop
of Exeter, and is not desirous of reading the Gloucester Jour-
nal which the Bishop has transmitted."
( The Right Rev. Prelate made no further observations.
The reply of Lord Seymour to the Bishop of Exeter occasioned
a loud laugh, and then the subject dropped. )
JOINT. STOCK BANKS (SCOTLAND AND IRE-
LAND) BILL.
The Earl of EGLINTON, after presenting a petition from
Scotland gainst the Bill, said he must earnestly request ti.e
Government to pospone the Bill till next session. In the early
part of the present session a deputation from Scotland waited
upon Sir R. Peel upon the subject of this Bill, and that Right
Hon. Baronet promised to re-consider the measure before
he pressed it forward. They had been in hopes, therefore, that
when the present Government came into office; the Bill would
lave been postponed for the present, but it was not to be so;
and the Bill had just come up to their Lordships' House
from the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He, however,
asked a 3 a favour for Scotland, whose interests were bound
up in this Bill, that it might be put off till next session.
There were 18 joint-stock banks in Scotland, 5 have charters,
and 13 have not. The 13 banks which had not charters
were equally safe with those which had. But the five
which possessed charters, had certainly an advantage
over the others, and the present Bill was for the purpose of
ens`. ling the unchartered to become so. But if they took advan-
tage of this Bill they would lase the power of lending money to
their shareholders upon the security of their shares, a most impor-
tant advantage which the old chartered banks would still retain;
besides their charter was only granted for a period of twenty
years, and required that the accounts should be made up in a
most invidious manner. A Bill for a similar purpose had
been passed in the year 1844 for English banks, but there
was only one bank that availed itself of the advantages which
it conferred; and he had authority for stating that not one
bank in Scotland would avail themselves of the powers granted
by the Bill, in which he recognised the. principle of
centralisation, which was such a favourite of Sir Robert
Peel, and which he censi lered a most vicious principle.
He could not conceive that those who adopted free trade prin-
ciples could countenance such a monopoly as the banks of
Scotland. Under these circumstances he must earnestly beg
her Majesty's Government would not allow the further con-
tinuance of this banking monopoly, or at all events postpone
this Bill till another session.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he thought it
would be improper at that late period of the session
to urge on Government any measure which was not known
to the public. Rut the present measure was not in
that position. It was understood by the other House
of Parliament, and the present Government had received a
deputation from the chartered bankers of Scotland. Some
of the Glasgow bankers bad certainly opposed the measure.
The bankers of Scotland, however, subsequently gave their
acquiescence in the Bill.
The Earl of KINNAIRD regretted to hear that the Bill
was to be pressed forward this session. It was not only a
banker's question but a landlord's question. It was modi-
fied on one occasion before, and he understood that
it would not be pressed forward without due notice being
given. He knew, from what he had seen and heard, that the
feeling expressed at county meetings was very much against
it. The chartered banks were in favour of the Bill, and they
were so because they knew that it would deprive many or all
of the unchartered banks from the advantages which they them-
selves possessed.
Earl GREY said that it would be better to postpone the
discussion until they came to the second reading. If the
Bill was to pass, it was important that it should do so with
as little delay as possible.—( Hear.) He should, therefore,
suggest that it should be made an order of the day, to
be read a second time on Thursday, and the merits
of the Bill then discussed. He should then be able to show
his Noble Friend that there were reasons for passing the Bill
of which he (the Earl of Kinnaird) was not aware.
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second time on Thursday.
IRISH MARRIAGE ACT.

On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, the Amended Irish
Marriage Act was read a second time.
ARGYLL CANAL BILL.

Upon the third reading of this Bill being moved
The Earl of WICKLOW proposed as an amendment, that
it be recommitted on the ground of the Committee not having
entertained the petition of certain shareholders against the Bill.
After a few words from Lorca Redesdale, Beaumont,
Shaftshury, Campbell, and Monteagle, the Bill was read a
third time and passed.
PUBLIC BATHS AND WASHHOUSES BILL.
After a few words from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE and
the Earl of RADNOR, the several clauses of the Public Baths
and Washhouses Bill went through Committee. The report
was broug up and ordered to be received to-morrow.
SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY (AMENDMENT AND

BRANCHES.).
The report upon this Bill was brought up and received.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Lcrd GREY gave notice that on Thursday next, he would
move the second reading of the Poor Removal Bill.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned until Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 4.
The Sys/omit took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.
Booth's Charities (Clowes') Estate Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed, as was also the Duke of
Cleveland's Estate Bill.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Lords' Amendments to the Llynvi Talley and South
Wales Junction Railway Bill, and the Sheffield. Rotherham,
Barnsley, Wakefield, Huddersfield, and Goole Railway Bills
were agreed to.
THIRD READING.
The Monmouthshire Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed.

FLOGGING.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Ilfracombe
against the system ofs fiung-GgAinßg in theDU.
sy and navy.
Mr. BAINE presented a petition from Glasgow in favour of
the Government measure with respect to sugar.
BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Holywell
against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
DUBLIN CORPORATION.
Sir 11. PEEL presented a petition from the lord mayor,
aldermen, and burgesses of Dublin, praying that the ancient
rights and privileges of the Corporation of Dublin should be
restored.

MILBANK PENITENTIARY.
Mr. T. S. DUNCONIBE presented a petition from a person
named Baker, the Superintendent of the Milbank Pri,on,
praying the House to institute an inquiry into the manner in
which the Milbank Penitentiary was conducted. The peti-
tioner stated that if an inquiry was granted, he would under-
take to prove that the greatest cruelty had been exercised with
respect to prisoners.