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

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING-, JULY 18. 1851.

ALARMING ACCIDENT.

On Tuesday night, between the hours of nine and ten
o'clock, a horse and gig passed along some of our prin-
cipal streets at a flying pace, to the great alarm and con-
sternation of the inhabitants. What increased the ex-
citement was the circumstance of a person sitting in the
gig, who had lost all power over the infuriated brute,
and for whose safety much concern was expressed.
Upon inquiry we were informed that the horse was
ultimately brought to a stand in Main-street,
Gorbals, and that the young gentleman who was
seen in the machine met with no injury. The particu-
lars of the case, as conveyed to us by Inspector Frame
of the Cabs, are as follow :—Yesterday afternoon,
three gentlemen engaged from Mr. Lawson, in Queen-
street, a horse and dog-cart to take them as far as
Cruickstone Castle and back. The party accomplished
their journey in safety, and returning by the Paisley-
road, they stopped at the half-way house between
Glasgow and Paisley for refreshment. When here, two
of the party got out, in order to give the horse a drink
of water, leaving their companion sitting in the machine,
holding the reins in his hands. One of the young men,
it is said, took off the horse's bridle in order to allow
him to drink more freely, when he being a full-bred
beast, and feeling himself without control, started off at
full speed to Glasgow. He careered along the Paisley-
road in furious style, and reached Glasgow-bridge
almost in the clap of a hand. The bit being out of
his mouth, the gentleman in the gig had not the least
command over him. He darted across the bridge like a
fury, and passed up Jamaica-street and along Argyll-
street without meeting an obstacle, the unfortunate indi-
vidual in charge of him all the while keeping his seat in
the gig as best he could, but pale with fright and anxiety.
The horse, it is said, made an attempt to turn up Queen-
street, by way of his owner's premises, when a person
who was passing along, threw up his arm, which had the
effect of causing the affirighted animal to continue his
course by Argyll-street and Trongate. Certain it is he ran
down Saltmarket-street, then in a very crowded state, at a
furious pace, crossed Hutcheson's-bridge, galloped up
Crown-street, and turned rapidly into the Rutherglon-
road, where his speed somewhat slackened, which ena-
bled the young gentleman in the gig to get out without
sustaining any injury. By this time the runaway was
pursued by hundreds of well-meaning but boisterous
persons, who kept up a shouting noise, which had the
very opposite effect from what they intended, and
he continued his gallop on to Shawfield Toll, where
the toll-keeper turned out and stood in the
middle of the road in order to catch the fugitive.
The appearance of the toll-keeper brought the horse
to a stand, but it was only for a moment; he wheeled
about as quick as thought, and made off by way of
Rutherglen Loan, which he reached in a few minutes
thereafter. Here his pace slackened considerably, and
after turning down Main-street, the poor beast, " reek-
ing with hot haste," ran right against the wooden pali
at the Accommodation Bridge, where he capsized t
gig and himself at the same time, and was soon secured
and conveyed home to Mr. Lawson, not much the worse
for his race. In connexion with this accident, it is al-
most miraculous, considering the state of the streets and
the hour of the night at which it occurred, that no one
was injured .—Glasgow Herald.

"To BRA.DSHAIV." " Stuff and nonsense, you tiresome
man," said Mrs. Lost. "You put me out of patience.
What o❑ earth has brought you to this stupid state?"
He feebly answered, " BRA.DSHAW." No one knows
what he means.—Dickens's "Household Words."

not, however, surprised at the Hon. and Learned
Member for Newark being so indignant at the sugges-
tion to disfranchise Harwich, because he repre-
sented a nomination borough which was very
little better than Harwich. It was said once
by a learned member of the bar, that these no-
mination boroughs were of great service to tho country,
inasmuch as they enabled members of his profession
to get into the House ; but the time had
arrived when they had too many lawyers in the
House, and this rule held good no longer. He gave
notice that when the Harwich writ was moved for he
would move, as an amendment, that it do not issue.
Mr. V. SMITH had nothing to say in favour of
Harwich. Before the House allowed this inquiry to
proceed some Member must make himself responsible
for the allegations which the petition contained.
Mr. HUME said there could be no doubt that Har-
wich was a most corrupt borough, and it could not be
too speedily disfranchised. The petitioners made cer-
tain charges against Government officers, and, without
reference to who was responsible for the correctness of
the allegations, it wag the duty of the House to sift such
a charge to the bottom.
Mr. DISRAELI supported the motion, believing that
it was necessary to ascertain the truth of the charges
contained in the petition. The House had unfortunately
allowed its attention to be diverted from the real question
at issue, which was simply whether there should be a
Committee or not. It would be time enough after that
was disposed of to go into the matter of disfranchising
Harwich.

Mr. E. DENISON objected to the way proposed of
nominating the Committee, and suggested that it had
better be appointed by the House. The Committee of
Selection might select a number of gentlemen to serve
on this inquiry, but they would have no power to com-
pel their attendanca, as in the case of an Election Com-
mittee.

Mr. BANKES said a similar petition was presented
a few years ago from certain electors of Stamford, and
in that case the Committee of Selection found no diffi-
culty in nominating a Committee to ascertain the truth
of its allegations.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ... 80
Majority for the motion ... —2
The motion was conseque❑tly carried.
SUPPLY.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY rose to call the attention of
the First Lord of the Admiralty to the want of accom-
modation for the repair of steam-vessels at Hawlboline;
and to ask whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
Government to provide the same. The lion. Gentleman
also moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject.
Sir F. BARING opposed the motion on the ground
of expense.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE was quite aware that the Admi-
ralty did not spare expense, but he complained of the
centralization of the expenditure to England. It was
nonsense to talk of leaving the enterprise to private spe-
culation, because private resources had not effected these
objects even in E❑gland. He considered it most unjust
that while hundreds of thousands of pounds were ex-
pended in trying to make Holyhead and Devonport
packet stations, that all aid was refused to Ireland in
that way.
Captain BOLDER() called the attention of the Admi-
ralty to the tact that although Sir H. Smith had written
an urgent letter to have a reinforcement sent to the Cape,
yet, in consequence of the harbour of Cork not being in
a condition to embark troops, the 12th Lancers had to be
conveyed to England, and thus a delay of six days was
the' consequence.
Admiral DUNDA.S denied that Sir H. Smith had
written an urgent letter for troops, or that any unneces-
sary delay was caused in the embarkation of the troops.
Dr. POWER reminded the House that both the First
Minister of the Crown and the late Lord Auckland
pledged themselves that a naval establishment should be
maintained at Cork. He remembered being one of a
deputation who waited on Lord Auckland a few years
ago, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and he
distinctly pledged himself that such should be done.
_ _

Colonel. CLI-ATTER,TON said he never saw a more
wretched ship than that on which the port-admiral at
Cork hoisted his flag on a recent occasion. He also
complained that the horses of the 12th Lancers had to be
sold previous to their embarkation.
Admiral DUNDAS assured his Hon. and Gallant
Friend that he was mistaken as to the flag ship of the
port-admiral, for he had a large two-decker and a screw
with him.—(A laugh.) As fur the horses of the 12th
Lancers it was thought better that they should be
mounted at the Cape.
Admiral BOWLES said that the late Government al-
ways looked on the harbour of Cork as one of great im-
portance, and when he was in office he had always con-
sidered it as such. It was of the greatest moment that
such a harbour should be always left in a proper condi-
tion, so as to render it not only a proper port for mer-
chant vessels, but for men-of-war.
Sir W. H. BARRON reminded the House that they
added thousands upon thousands on the naval ports of
this country, but Ireland was to be abandoned, and left
to its own tesources. They destroyed her farmers, her
landed interest, her milling interest, and now refused to
contribute a single farthing in repairing one of the finest
harbours in the United Empire.
The Reuse then divided, wln there appeared—
For the motion ... 104
Against it ... ..• ••• 26
Majority .., _7B
THE HORFIELD ESTATE.
Mr. P. MILES next called the attention of the House
to the case of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and the
charges lately brought against the Right Rev. Prelate.
His object in bringing the question forward was to clear
the character of his Right Rev. Friend, and to show that
the charges preferred by the Hon. and Learned Member
for Cockermouth were totally without foundation. The
principal of these was, that there was a moral responsi-
bility on the part of the bishop not to grant a lease of
the Horfield estate, and he grounded that charge on the
evidence of two witnesses, and the fact that the two pre-
vious bishops who held the see made no such lease. The
Hon. Gentleman spoke in so low a tone of voice as to
be rendered inaudible in the gallery. We understood
him to say, as far as we could collect from the detached
sentences which reached us, that as regarded the ques-
tion of the renewal of the lease of the Horfield Manor,
the Bishop of Gloucester had sufficiently answered.
That bishop was under no moral obligation to renew,
and was bound alone, with regard to this matter, by
the Order in Council of 1836, and that he was left to
deal with the estate as he pleased, and that his object in
the transaction was to do the best for the public good.
He said the correspondence stated by the Hon.
Gentleman as having taken place in 1822, did not
occur until 1847, and that the account given of it
was so diffuse, that he could not arrange it. The Hon.
Gentleman stated that the bishop was under a moral
obligation not to renew the lease. Now, he had the
authority of the bishop to say, there was not a word of
truth in that statement. In 1847 there was a negotia-
tion with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the sale
of the estate, and subsequently an offer was made by the
bishop to sell it for 11,5001., but that was broken off and
not concluded, and that transaction was known to all the
other bishops. From that time to the death of Dr.
Shadwell nothing was done to effect a sale. The bishop
then appointed Mr. Huh, of Gloucester, his secretary, as
lessee, and instead of putting in the lives of his three
sons, as alleged, he put in the lives of the three Royal
Princesses.—(Hear, hear,) Great stress had been laid
on the value of the estate, which was said to amount to
a rental of 3,4001., whereas it did not exceed 5551.,
which was also subject to deductions. When la e ap.•
pointed his own secretary, that gentleman gave up a
living of between 7,0001. and 8,0001. a year, and there-
fore he would derive a less income; and as a slur had
been thrown on his title he appointed his dean secretary
to secure the property. He hoped he had said sufficient
to exonerate the bishop from any blame. In his own
diocese he was respected for his liberality and kindness,
and his subseriptions were greater than those of any
revious bishop. He therefore thought, to quote the
words of the Hon. Member, " that the Right Rev.
Prelate would be again able to hold up his head as an
honest man."
Mr. HORSNIAN said the Hon. Gentleman had cer-
tainly made his statement with great fairness, an d where
he had censured it was in the lightest manner thiet could
be unpleasant to him. This was not a question botween
him and the bishop; it was a charge which, if „true,
affected others as well as the Bishop of Gloucester. If
the indictment was found that the Bishop of Gloucest or
had devastated the estates of the Church it lay also
against others. It was a public question. He knew
nothing of it but from evidence taken before a Committee
of that House, bat the Hon. Gentleman made no refer-
ence to that evidence. What was the statement that he
(Mr. Horsman) made? It was this, that when the
Bishop of Gloucester succeeded to the see, the estate of
Horfield rested upon one life, and that both the pretrious
bishops had refrained from renewing. That Bishop Ca'-rey
had attempted to renew, not when the first life fell in,
but when the two first lives dropped, but that he re-
frained from doing so, because he could not obtain .an
adequate fine. He also stated that when Bishop Allen
succeeded to the see,
Lord Melbourne required from him
a pledge that he would not renew, and that Bishop Allen
had not, during his time, made a renewal. He stated
this uon the evidence of Mr. Richards, twenty years per-
petual curate of Horfielt.!• and well acquainted with the
estate, who stated that he
had frequent conversations
with Bishop Grey on the subject, and that he heard
because he could not get
him state he would not rerenew •
el e see should have
the price he asked, as he prey erre
'then, and would ra-
the benefit rather than h Chu., is own -r
emstances. This
ther let the lease lapse under such etre:t.
Ws
Bishophad
death, been
Grey's
was corroborated by a letter written )?
gsoonin,ginonwfhoirchthirteweaysesatrasted previoustha t llteogtohteiatZx,
for the
abinsdhothp,atasthweassuwmellwkansowrenf,uswedas
asnotina manadeq to do dirtuatte-,y
work by enriching his family at the expense of his a ."-
cessors.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member had not alluded t,l
the evidence taken before the Church Leases Committee
on this subject. The case of the Bishop of Gloucester had
been stated elsewhere, not more ably bet more artisti-
cally. Mr. Richards stated in his evidence that commu-
nication had been made after Bishop Grey's death to Lord
Melbourne, with regard to the Horfield estate, and that
he knew an attempt had been made for a renewal, and
that he knew that no attempt had been made for a
renewal during Bishop Allen's time, because Dr. Shad-
well would have informed him if such had been the
case. He (Mr. Horsman) did not say there was dirt ct
evidence of these transactions, but that there was strong
circumstantial evidence to show that Bishop Allen had
been required by Lord Melbourne to give a pledge that
he would not renew. Bishop Allen himself stated that
a renewal ought not to be for lives. Now, how was this
evidence met? In another place witnesses were referred
to, represented as of unimpeachable veracity. First
there was the evidence of Ur. Vincent Sculley, who
stated that the bishop refused to renew because the
lease° would act give the price asked, Lie added that

what he stated was not of his own knowledge, but what
he learned from others. He further stated that the F re-
sent bishop would not take the fine offered. Every an-
swer of this gentiman was given in the most cautious
manner, and showed that he knew nothing of the trans-
action. The Right Reverend Bishop who defended the
Bishop of Gloucester said these sentiments were derived
from a surveyor in the neighbourhood, who was notorious
for his opposition to the Church and Churchmen. The
person referred to was Mr. Stukey.
Mr. P. MILES said the person referred to was Mr.
Sturge, nor Mr. Stukey, who was the great banker.
Mr. HORSMAN—He could only say that every an-
swer of Mr. Stukey was given on hearsay. Now he
would come to Mr. Sturge. He stated there had been
negotiations between the Bishop of Bristol and the
lessee referring to Bishop Grey, not Bishop Allen, who
was then Bishop of Ely. He would now come to a part
of the evidence in which the Bishop of Gloucester totally
denies the whole matter, and when he alluded to it, he
hoped that the House would take the whole matter into
consideration.—(Hear, hear.) He saw that there was a
considerable degree of ingenuity practised in 1842, and
that the plan was also endeavoured to be carried on in
1847, which he looked upon as moat unjust, and which
he believed the House would totally disapprove of.—
(Hear, hear.) He argued this on the evidence of the
blue book, which was worthy of the consideration of
the House—(Hear, hear)—and which was diametrically
opposed to the evidence of the Bishop of Gloucester.—
(Hear, hear.) It was said that in 1848 the Bishop of
Gloucester offered to make over this property to the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners on what they considered to
be liberal terms, and that the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), who was chair-
man of a Committee at that time, to whom the matter
was submitted for consideration, was favourable to the
transaction; but all the agreement then entered into, as
it appeared from Mr. Murray's evidence, was, that the
Commissioners assented to the terms of the bishop's offer,
not because they considered it liberal, but in order to
save the estates from indefinite alienation. He con-
ceived that the Commissioners might have so acted in
order to avoid a state of things occurring which would be
attended with greater difficulty. Ho made these charges
in that House the other night in the presence of seve-
ral Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and not one of them
had contradicted them, but so far from that being
done, the motion of the Honourable Member for Bris-
tol on the subject was withdrawn from that House
altogether, and introduced in another place, where there
were none of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners present to
approve or disapprove of it. There was one other point to
which he would direct the attention of the House. The
Act by which the sees of Bristol and Gloucester were
united, was passed in 1836. At the time of his appoint-
ment to those sees the bishop was to receive the tempo-
ralities of both, the one being represented at 9251., and
the other at upwards of 3,000/. per annum, and the Act
uniting them fixed the income of both at 5,0001. per an-
num ; but, instead of that, the average income derived
from them by the bishop had, for the last 14 years, been
7,2281. per annum, and in 1848, the income was 11,1071.
In 14 years, therefore, the bishop had an increase of
income of 32,0001., over the 5,0001. he was allowed
by Act of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were wrong in not
making proper stipulations as to the property of Hur-
field, as their doing so would have prevented the evils
which had taken place, as the Bishop of Gleucester had
now renewed the lease of that property for three lives for
the benefit of his family. On a former occasion he stated
that the lease was renewed to Mr. Holt, the bishop's sec-
retary, but that it was for the lives of his own family.
That was the information he received, but they were now
told that the lives placed in the lease were those of three
of the children of the Royal Family. The Bishop of
Gloucester, by cluing that, had taken care to have three
lives of a family notoriously long-lived, and associated
the name of the Queen with a transaction which was
anything but creditable.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Bristol had said, that for this property the
bishop bad given up a living of 700/. per annum, but he
tound that the living referred to was worth only 500/. a
year, while the Hortield estate, which he had taken pos-
session of for three lives, now produced 3 0001. a year,
and in course of the three lives might be worth 30,0001.
a year. Here, then, was one of the most valuable estates
of the Church taken possession of by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, by virtue of an Order in Council, alienated
from the Church, and assigned for three lives to the bishop's
family. Now, though the bishop might have a legal right
thus to alienate the estate, he maintained there was amoral
obligation upon him net to do so. Even the law was
against granting long leases of ecclesiastical property, for
the 13th of Elizabeth condemned the practice, and the
Act of 1836, appointing fixed incomes to the bishops,
evidently meant that the sum they might receive over
5,0004, the sum specified in the Act, was to be held by
them in trust, and accounted for to the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners. It was no answer to
say that the Bishop of Gloucester had only done what
other bishops had done, for he held that of ail others the
bishops of the Church, in the management of the pro-
perty appertaining to their office, ought to act so as to
be as example to others; but was such the case? So
far from its being so, did they not find that the bishops
were the very worst administrators? For how many
churches might not have been built, and schools erected,
had not the sums bequeathed generations ego,
by charitable individuals, for charitable purposes,
been alienated from the purposes for which they were
originally intended, by the prelates of the Church?
He, therefore, condemned the system of allow-
ing those parties to have the right of doing with Church
property us they pleased, as, were it properly ad-
ministered, and appropriated to proper objects, educa-
tion might be extended, and crime diminished by it'
and the general well-being of the community greatly ad-
vanced.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, when it was arranged that
they should depart from the ordinary business of the
night to enter upon an explanation and a discussion re-
specting the Hurfield Manor, he confessed he little ex-
pected, after the statement that had been made by his
Hon. Friend, that the Hon. Gentleman should have risen
—not in vindication of himself, which he for one thought
was much needed—but that he should have departed—
sorsly to the inconvenience of the House and the delay
of public business—to such topics as the future condition
of Horfield Manor, to the revenues of the see of Bristol
and Gloucester, the conduct of the bishop of that see,
and thence to the revenues and conduct of the bishops of
all the other sees of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) With
reference to the state of the law on these matters, he
agreed with every word that had fallen from the Mon.
Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He fully concurred as to the
badness of our legislation; but it was one thing to de-
nounce bad legislation, and another to judge with st-
verity those who merely act under that bad system
which the Legislature bad established. It was another
thing, not merely to deal severely with, but to misrepre-
sent them, as the Hon. Gentleman had dene.—(Hear,
hear.) He would pass lightly over some of the state-
ment' of the Hon. Gentleman, for he confessed he did
not understand some of those with regard to the see of
Gloucester. The Honourable Gentleman said the
revenue of that see was 10,0001. some hundreds in 1848,
and that from episcopal sources alone the bishop had
received 34,000/. more than he ought to have received.
(Mr. Horswan dissented.) The Honourable Gentleman
said, that including the two commendams which yielded
1,700/ the revenue of the bishop in that year had been
11,0001.; did he not say that ? (Mr. HORSMAN—Yes )
Well, then, taking that 1,700/. from the revenue of the
see, that, according to the Hun. Gentleman, would give
only 9,3001. from episcopal sources for that year. But
if he took the figures as given in the return ordered to
be laid on the table of the House of Commons tor that
year he found that the revenue of the Bishop of Glou-
cester for that year was only 6,200/, subject to a deduc-
tion of about 200/., instead of 9,3001., as stated by the
Hon. Gentleman. Well, then, the Hon. Gentleman said
the Bishop of Gloucester bad received 34,000/. beyond
what he should have received from episcopal sources.
Mr. HORSMAN—I said 34,0001. over his own cal-
culation.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, he would take it that way.
Over his own calculation. But he could find nothing of
the knd in the returns laid before the House fur the
last seven years. According to these returns the net
revenue of the see was—
For the year 1844
••• 1845
"41 1846
••• 1848
•• 1849
And for 1850
That was for the last seven years, and he must say he
was pubzled to know by what ingenuity the Hon. Gen-
tleman could make out by these figures how the Bishop
had received 34,000/. more than he was entitled to.
Mr. HORSMAN said he took the 34,000/. on the
Bishop's own calculation, in 1836.
Mr. GLADSTONE—That might be, but he had
given the returns for the last seven years, and at all
events it did not bear the statement that the income of
he bishop in 1848 was 11,000/., and he wanted the Hon.
Gentleman to show how ho could justify that statement.
—(Hear, hear.) He entered fully into the spirit of
every syllable uttered by the Hoe. Gentleman in the
abstract as to the duties of bishops, and the spirit and
way in which they should discharge those duties; but
he was bound to say at the same time that our law pro-
ceeded upon a totally different calculation—that it bound
he bishops to the world, and connected them with the Mi-
nisters and the Legislature of the day; and if we placed
them in that position, it was not for the Hon. Gentle-
man to come down upon them with severity and censure
because they did not come up to his abstract ideas
—his sound ideas in themselves.—(Hear, hear.) But
let them go to the statements originally made by the
Honourable Gentleman with respect to Horfield Manor.
These statements, as he understood them, divided
themselves into two separate questions. In the
first place, whether the Bishop of Gloucester has
pursued a course which calls for the censure of
this House; and, in the second place, whether the Hon.
Gentleman had exercised due diligence in the examina-
tion of the facts before making these statements against
a prelate of the Church. The Hon. Gentleman had said
a Horfield Manor was worth a grew, deal now, and
ti. it would be much more valuable in future. He had
that. nation in saying that in taking the course he had
no beb- was acting under the conviction that he had
done be , , to do so; and though he might not have
legal pawn ."
.the Hoe. Gentleman thought best, yet
taken the cone.
se confosand the posaibility of future
do not let the Hoe,
wrong-doing with the positive violation of engagements
and breach of faith charged acainst
intonehiro.—(llar, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman would age se with him
namely, that under present eienumiatances the bishop
could not, as a gentleman, declitev what his intentions
were at the present moment. If he were to do so it
would deprive of ell grace whatever h e meant to do in
future in favour of the Church. He h ad a right to say,
6 I will use my own discretion as to the, u
But in the time and man-
ner in which I will do what I intend to E 6 •
!meantime the Ilea.he had nu groued for eondeanninauh.
llf he used the great powers in his possession wrongly,
then condemn him, but not g present, because the law

had invested him with these great powers, and at pre sent
they had no evidence whatever that he intended to ; mis-
use them.—.(Hear, hear.) But what was the st ate:
ment of the Hon. Member? In the first place he ;aid
that Bishop Grey at a cer tiin period bad declared his
determination not to renew the lease of Horfield Mat ;ori
but to let it run out for the benefit of the Churnb. I tal
that allegation been sustained? On the contrar2 tea
been it I ea
been entirely broken down, and by no one more titan the
Hon. Gentleman himself, because he had read a lei ;ter
from a son of Bishop Grey, in which it was stated'. 4. hat
a few months before his death an offer was made v rb ich
he refused, because it was inadequate.—(Hear, b cur.)
That was a point blank contradiction to the first all ItP"
tion. The second allegation was that Bishop Allen bad
been bound by Lord Melbourne not to renew the I ea
se
during his incumbency. The Hon. Gentleman had 2/
withdrawn that allegation, and admitted that he had a)
reason to make it.
Mr. HORSMAN—I do not admit anything of 6 Ile
kind.
Mr. GLADSTONE—If the Hon. Member did m at
admit that, he had, at all events, made a great alteratic
in the original allegation he formerly stated as ono t
fact. He now stated it as one entirely of inference an a
presumption, and it was on that ground alone l'be stab 3:
tent rested, that he did not mean to renew the lease of
Horfield Manor. The leteer of Bishop Allen .to tl
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which be offered tho:
the lease of Horfield Manor, showed that he had nt**
to
tention of sacrificing his rights, because he proposed
hand over the estate to them on condition that t bt
would build a palace for his residence. Then the I to n'
Member made, what he could not help thinking
saying was a very remarkable statement respect
Bishop Monk. That statement was that he knew Tic);
thing of moral obligation, but he was determined to stt
on his legal rights.
Mr. HORSMAN—I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. GLADSTONE repeated that was his decid 9d
impression of the statement of the Hon. Gentleman. I ,
had imputed to the bishop that, either in writing or 11`
words, he had stated that he knew nothing of moral of
ligation, and was determined to stand upon his legs ii
rights. Did the Hon. Gentleman adhere to that?
Mr. HORSMAN—I adhere to all that I said befor er;
but I do not accept the representation of the Right HO.
Gentleman.

Mr. GLADSTONE did not wish to misrepresent
the Hon. Gentleman, but he would only say that 0 50
principal of these charges had entirely failed. Wel le
then, ho understood that another capital point of the e
case was, that when an arrangement had been made be- •
tween the bishop and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it
was stopped because it was detected as a job. Did the
Hon. Gentleman adhere to the principle of that state-
ment? He bad not given one tittle of evidence to sup-
port it, and it was important because it had been stated
elsewhere, and the Hon. Member knew it had, that the
arrangement had not failed on its merits, but simply be-
cause the lawyers had advised it to be given upon account
or some technicalities. These appeared to him to be
the most material allegations in the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman, and they had all vanished away on being
subjected to the test of examination, nor had the Hon.
Gentleman, in his speech of nearly two hours that
night, said anything that could sustain these allega-
tions. But the Hon. Member had made much of a,
letter, said to have been written by the bishop, in which
he said it would be disparaging to his character if he
thought of renewing the lease of Horfield Manor. But
he held in his hands another letter from the bishop, in
which he did not treat the mere idea of the renewal of
the lease as disparaging and injurious. His own words
were, that it would be disparaging to his character if be
were to renew the lease on the same tenure of lives. It
was to that, and not the mere renewal that he referred,
and therefore that charge passed away like all the others.
M. HORSMAN— When was the letter published?
Mr. ciLath, t ONE—If the Hon. Gentleman thought
the Bishop of Gloucester capable of using fabricated and
turgeu documents to support his statements, there was
an end of the case.

Mr. HORSMAN—I quoted from the blue books--.
was that pamphlet of equal authority?
Mr. GLADSTONE was not quoting anything con-
tradictory to what had been stated by the Hon.
Gentleman. He was merely showing that the bishop
considered it disparaging to suppose that he would
renew the lease on the same term of lives on copy-
hold. Well, but you say " that is the very thing be
has done."—(Hear, hear.) He was not so sure of that.
The bishop was both lessor and lessee.—(A laugh.)
The Honourable Member for Guildford, who laughed,
only laughed at his own mistake, and showed how
little he understood the matter. The bishop had great
powers, and public opinion would hold him responsible
for the use he made of these powers. He must, there-
fore, say, as far as he had been able to follow the state-
ments of the Honourable Gentleman, that he' had en-
tirely failed in proving these statements, and that he
had not shown reasonable care before making them.
The Bishop of Gloucester had only exercised his un-
doubted rights as an ecclesiastical proprietor. He might
agree with the Hon. Member in thinking these rights
were too great—that they rested on a wrong foundation,
and ought to be amended; but that was a totally diffe-
rent question from their exercise while they did exist,
and it was hard and cruel that a bishop should be held
up to public odium who believed that he had been acting
with the most munificent intentions towards the Church.
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gladstone) had full confi-
dence in his honour, and that he would act on the prin-
ciples he had laid down for his guidance with respect
to Horfield Manor—that he would still act in what had
been described by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as
a " liberal" spirit. It seemed clear that his intention
was to apply the money for renewal to the very pur-
poses the Hon. Gentleman had in view, namely, the
augmentation of the smaller livings in his diocese. lie
hoped the generosity of these intentions would be taken
into consideration, and that the future acts of the bishop
would be left to be visited with censure if he did not act
up to them; but he called upon the House not to con-
demn him beforehand.

Attrr a few words in explanation from Mr
HORSMAN,

Sir J. GRAHAM expressed his regret at finding this
discussion going on when he entered the House, and be
was not sure that it was for the public benefit that the
discussion should be allowed to proceed.—(Hear, hear.)
But he was afraid that his silence might be misconstrued,
and therefore telt bound to state briefly his opinion. tie
had not been appointed a member of the Ecclesiatical
Commission until 1841, and ho quite agreed that the
present state of the matter was not, in many respects,
satisfactory, especially in the distinction between the
episcopal and the common funds.—(Loud cries of '• Hears
hear.") He thought such a distinction was most injurious,
not only to the public, but to the prelates themselves.
and he rejoiced that last year a remedy had been ap
plied to this particular evil, and hoped that would have
been accepted as an indication that other reforms would
follow. He bad no acquaintance with the Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol, save that arising from such inter-
course as arose from sitting at the common board of
which they were members, and he was surprised that,
looking at the high reputation of the bishop as a scholar
and a gentleman, and one who was anything but nig.
gardly in pecuniary matters—(Hear, hear)—such
charges should have been made against him,—(Hear.)
The high reputation he had sustained at the University
of Cambridge, his character in his own diocese, and the
fact that he was now approaching 70 years of age--
having during his long life sustained the reputation of a
scholar and a gentleman, made him deeply regret that
any transaction should have occurred which the Hon.
Member considered it his duty to bring before the House
in the terms he had.—(Hear, hear.) He must say, how.
ever, that the part which he had taken on the Commis-
sion, had led him to entertain no doubt whatever, either
of the high character or munificent intentions of the
bishop. He had a right to exercise the powers invested
in him, and believed he intended to do so for the benefit of
the diocese. He only wished they could have a free con-
ference where the Hon. Gentleman might enter into
discussion with the bishops.—(Hear. hear.) He would
find these Right Reverend Prelates preternaturally sharp
in words.—(Laughter.) But he put it to the Hon. Gen-
tleman, was it really worth while to hold up these pre-
lates as robbers, devastators, and plunderers? The bit.
terest enemy of the Church could not use worse lan-
guage, and he must say be almost blushed to hear such
expressions. He was quite sure that the Bishop of
Gloucester's reputation for piety and morality would
survive the imputations which had been cast upon it in
the matter now under the consideration of the House.
Sir B. HALL was quite confident that good would
arise to the public out of the discussion of the ques-
tion now under the consideration of the House.—(Hear,
hear.) What he now principally rose for was, to ex-
press a hope that the Government would appoint a Com-
mission with power and instructions to go into the
whole question of the temporalities of the Church, and
to so constitute that Commission that a satisfactory ac-
count would be given of such temporalities in each
parish. He wished to ask the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, a
question on a matter which had come under his autbo
rity, namely, whether the return made by the bishops
of the gross income of their sees, was a faithful re-
turn of the incomes of those bishops ? The bishops
were required to make a return to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners of the full value of the profits of their
sees, as derived by them, and they had made a return
but be was given to understand that they had granted
leases either for their trustees, or for the benefit of their
own families ; but inasmuch as no money had passed.
that no account had been rendered of the matter in the
return. He found that the Bishop of Durham had re-
ceived 79,0001. more in that way than was accounted for
in the fines, and he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman whether he could inform him that the bishop had
greeted any leases for the benefit of his trustees or family.
and whether the full value had been set upon them if he
had?

Mr. GOULBURN was not prepared to answer the
question put to him by the Right Hon. Bsronet, net
having had any intimation that such a question would
be put to him. He, however, knew that the principle
laid down by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners tended to
give a fair result. With respect to the Bishop of Lon"
don, he was enabled to state that in the leases he had
made he made sacrifices of fines which, under other cir'
cumetances of letting, he might have obtained.
Sir B. HALL thought that the Right Hon. Gentle•
man misunderstood the question which he put to him'
The Right Hon. Gentleman would find in the second
return, p. 234, that the Bishop of London in 1843 had
received 13.519/.. and that he had granted leases to hilt"
self to the amount of 12.0001., and yet the return or
peered to show only 2,1611. The return, therefore, Was
what he should call a fallacious return.
Mr. GOULBURN could bear testimony that the
Bishop of London had made very large sacrifices in the
granting of leases. He granted leases from year t°
year, whereas had he granted them in the ordinary way
the who'', fine would have sppcared..
Sir R. INGLIS was glad to fitsveati -cippOrtunity 0f
doing justice to a Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of
Gloucester) whose reputation had that night been Ate