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

lIALNKING D,

Proprietors'oapital.. 14,553,000
Rest .........• 3,192,04
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ings-banks, and Di-
vidend accouni,s).. 4,319,318
Other deposits 10,440,830
Seven day and other

_ -
Bllls.• •••••• • • •• 1,175,054

433,680,426

Dated the 17th day of July, 185

COURSE OF EXCH)
Anasteruani .......• .. 11 16 y,„

bltto, three months 11 1
iotterdana .... • • ..•• 11 18
Brussels— .• 25 22 yi
a amburgh .... • • M.B. 13 7%

Paris, 3 days'sisht • 25 2%
Ditto, 8 months .... 25 2?%
Marseilles •........... 25 0
Bourdeaux ......... •
frankforton 11914
8er1in............ • • • •
Vienna, effec. 11 46
Trieste, ditto.... • • .... 11 47
Petersburgh, SU. Rble.. 37%
Madrid •• •• ........ 49 k
Cedis •• ............ 50%
Barcelona •• ..........
Sevilla.. • • •• • . • • • • • •

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 17.
Mr. HEADLAM pr,,sf-nted a petition in favour of the
Arrest of Absconding Debtors' Bill.
SUPPLY. _ _

On the motion for going; ll:Ito 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 Hon. Gentleman
also moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject.
Sir E. 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 ho complained of the
centralization of the expenditure to England. It was
nonsense to talk of leaving the enterprise to private ape-
culation, because private resources had not effected these
objects even in England. He considered it most unjust
that while hundreds of thousands of pounds were ex-
pended in trying to make Holy head and Devonport
packet stations, that all aid was refused to Ireland i❑
that way.
Captain BOLDERO called the attention of the Admi-
ralty to the tact that although Sir 11. Salith had written
an urgent letter to have a reinforcemen: sent to the Cape,
yet, in consequence of the harbour of Cork not being in
a condition to embark troops, the 120 Lancers had to be
conveyed to England, and thus a delay of six days was
the consequence.
Admiral DUNDAS denied that Sir H. Smith had
written an urgent letter for troopp, or that any unneces-
sary delay was cau,ed in the embarkation of the troops.
Dr. POWER reminded the House that both the Fir,t
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 CHATTERTON 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 for 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 lett 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. BA .RRON 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 House then divided, when 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 coils ct 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
dealt h the
,srisOderh t ihne
estateCcni nc ial of 1836,
she a
pleased, nd a
ntdh at
ht
abteh wasi le
object
bject tt to
no
the transaction was to do the best for the public good.
Ile said the correspondence stated by the Hun.
Gentleman as having taken place in 1822, did not
occur until 1847, and that the account green 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
rioenewrsasfoarntehgeostad ial
ttriounth
wi
tthh a
tth
es tEa ?ere:
inat.3t
clani
ClBo4m7mt
ihsts-
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 trausac.ion was known to all this
other bishops. From that time to the death of Dr.
Shadwell nothing wee done to effect a sale. The bishop
then appointed Mr. Holt, of Gloucester, his secretary, as
lessee, and instead of putting in the fives of his three
sons, as alleged, he put in the lives of the three Royal
Princesses.—(Elear, bear,) Gteat 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 he up-
pointed his own secretary, that gentleman gave up a
living of between 7,0001. and 8,0001. a year, and there-
fore ho 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 be was respected for his liberality and kindness,
and his subscriptions were greater than those of any
previous 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 bead as an
honest man."
Mr. HORSMAN said the Hon. Gentleman had cer-
tainly made his statement with great fairness, and where
he had censured it was in the lightest manner that could
be unpleasant to him. This was not a question between
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 Gloucester
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, but 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 previous
bishops had refrained from renewing. That Bishop Grey
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 nut renew, and that Bishop Allen
had not, during his time, made a renewal. He stated
this noon the evidence of Mr. Richards, twenty years per-
petual curate of Horfield, and well acquainted with the
estate, who stated that he had frequent conversations
with Bishop Grey on the subject, and that he heard
him state he would not renew because he could not get
the price he asked, as he preferred the see should have
the benefit rather than his own children, and would ra-
ther let the lease lapse under such circumstences. This
was corroborated by a letter written by Bishop Grey's
son, in which it was stated that negotiations had been
going on for three years previous to the bishop's death,
and that the sum was refused as inadequate, for the
bishop, as was well known, was not a mac to do dirty
work by enriching his family at the expense of his sue-
cessors.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member had not alluded to
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 but more artisti-
cally. Mr. Richards stated in his evidence that commu-
nication had been made after Bishop G ray's death to Lord
Melbourne, with regard to the Hurtle 1.1 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. Shai-
well would have informed him if such had been the
case. He (Mr. Horsman) did not say there was direct
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, bow was this
evidence met? In another place witnesses were referred
to. represented as of uninopea-heble verneety. Yrst,
there was the evidence Mr. Vine. tit , wi.o
stated that the bishop refused to renew because the
!east° would not give the price asked. li© added that

what he stated was not of his own knowledge, but what
he learned from it.hers. He further stat,d that the pre-
sent bishop would not take the fine offered. Every an-
swer of this gentlman was given in the most cant ous
manner, and showed that he knew nothing of the trans-
action. The Right Reverend Bishop who defended the
of Gloucester said these sentiments were derived
from a surveyor in the neighbourhood, who was notorious
fir his opposition to the Church end Churchmen. The
person referred to was Mr. Stukey.
Mr. P. MILES said the person referred to was Mr.
Sturge, not Mr. Stukey, who was the grain 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

negotiafions between tt;i3 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, be
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 most 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.—
(Bear, hear.) It was said that in 1848 the Bishop of
Gloucester offered to make over thi: 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 mignt have so acted in
order to avoid a state of things occurring which would be

attended with greater difficulty. He made these charges
in that House the other night in the presence ot 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-
ralittes of both, the one being represented at 925/., and
the other at upwards of 3,0001. per annum, and the Act
uniting them fixed the income of barb at 5,0004 per an-
num ; but, instead of that, the average income derived
from them by the bishop had, for the last 14 years, been
7.228/. 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.--(Rear, hear.) He thought
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were wrong in not
making proper stipulations as to the property of air-
field, as their doing su would have prey, rated the evils
which had taken place, as the Bishop of Gl,;ucester bad
now renewed the lease of that property for three lives for
the benefit of his family. Oa a former occasion be stated
:hat 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 infirrination he received, but they were now
told that the lives placed in toe lease were those of three
of the children of the Royal Family, The Bishop of
Gloucester, by doing that, had taken care to have three
lives of a family ❑otoriously long-lived, and associated
the name of the Queen with a transaction which was

anything but creditable.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon
Member for Bristol hail said, that for ibis property the
b shop bad given up a living of 700/. per annum, but be
found that the living referred to was worth only 500/. a
year, while the Hot field estate, which he had taken pos-
session of for three lives, now produced 3,000/. a year,
and in course of the three lives might he worth 30 0001.
a year. Here, then, was one of the most valuable estates
of the Church taken possession of by the Ecclesiastical
CommisAenera, by virtue of au Order in Council, alienated
from the Cnurch, and assigned for three lives to the bishop's
family. Now, though the bishop might have a legal right
thus to alit retie 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, tor
the 13th of Elizabeth condemned the practice, and the
Act of 1836, appointing fixed incomes to the bishops,
evidently meaut that tne sum they might receive over
5,0001., 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
sty that the Bishop or Gloucester had only done what
other bishops had done, for he held that of all others the
bishops of the Church, in the management of the pro-
perty appertaining to their office, ought to act so as to
be an example to others; but was such the case? So
tar from its being su, 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 ago,
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 as 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 Horfield Mauer, 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 hieueell, which he for one thought
was much needed—but that he should have departed—
sorely to the inconvenience of the House and the delay
of public business—to such topics as the future condition
of Ilorfi, Id Manor, to the revenues of the see of Bristol
and Gluucest.er, 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 toe law on these matters, he
agreed with every word that had fallen from the Hon.
Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) He fully concurred as to the
badness of our legislation; but it was one thing to de •
flounce bad legislation, and another to judge with Be..
verity those who merely act under that bud system
which the Legislature had established. It was another
thing, Lot inertly to deal severely wide, but to misrepre-
sent ;hem, as the lion. Gentleman had dome.—(Hear,
hear.) He would pass lightly over some of the state-
ments of the Hon. Gentleman, fur he confessed he did
not understand some of those with regard to the see of
Gloucester. The Honourable Geed, man said the
revenue of that see was 10,000/. some huuereds in 1843,
end that from episcopal sources alone the bishop tied
received 34,0001. more than he ought to have received,
(Mr. Hursusan dissented.) The Honourable Gentleman
said, that including the two commendoms which ya lded
1,700/ the revenue of the bishop in that year had been
11,0001.; did he not say thee ? (Mr. Homelike—Yes )
Well, then, taking that 1,7001. from the revenue of the
see, that, according to the Hun. Gentlemen, would give
only 9 3001. from episcopal sources fur that year. But
if he took the agates as given in the return ordered to
be laid on the table of the House of Commons for that
year he found that the revenue of the Bishop of Glou-
cester for that year was only 6,2001, subject to a deduc-
tion of about 200/., instead or 9,3001., as stated by the
Hun. Gentleman. Well, then, the Hoo. Gentleman said
the Bishop of Gloucester had received 34,000/. beyond
what he exited have received from episcopal sources.
Mr. .110116M.AN—I said 34,0001. over his own cal-
culation.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, he would take it that way.
Over his owu calculation. But he could find nothing of
the ]and in the returns laid before the House fur the
last seven years. According to these returns the net
revenue of the see wa5.£3,500
.£3,500
For the year 1844
••• 1845
••• 1846
..• 1848
1849
And for 1850
That was for the last seven years, and he must say he
was pubaled to know by what ingenuity the Hon. Gen-
tleman could make out, by these figures how the Bishop
had received 34,0004 more than he was entitled to.
Mr. HORS MAN said he took the 34,0001. 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 statemeut that the income of
he bishop in 1848 was 11,000/., and he wanted the Hon.
Gentleman to show how he 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 Hun.
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
the Horfield Manor was worth a great deal now, and
that it would be much mere valuable in future. He bad
no hesitation in saying that in taking the course he had
done be was acting under the conviction that he had
legal power to do so; and though he might not have
taken the course the Hon. Gentleman thought best, yet
do not let the House confound the possibility of future
wrong-doing with the positive violation of engagements
and breach of faith charged against him.—(blear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman would agree with him in one thing,
namely, that under present circumstances the bishop
could not, as a gentleman, declare what his intentions
were at the present moment. If he were to do Bo it
would deprive of all grace whatever lie meant to do in
future in favour of the Church. He had a right to say,
will use my own di,urction as to the time and man-
ner in which I will /fa shat I istesd to de." But in the
useatesitee use douse heti nu groubci fur corideumatioe.
If he used the great powers in his possession wrongly,
then condemn hire, but not at present, because the law

had invested him with these great powers, and et pr,%'&ent
they bad no QVI3OIiCe whivever that lie intended 10 COis-
-11110 thew.—(Hear, hear.) But what was the state'
meat of the Hon Member? Iu the first place he sai'd
that Bishop Grey at a certain period had eeclared his
determination not to renew the lease of Horficid Manor,
but to let it run out for the b m fit f the Church. Had
that atlegattou been sustained? On the contrary, it had
been entirely broken down, and by no one more than the
Gentleman himself, because he had read a letter
from a son of Bishop Grey, in which it was stated that
a few months before his death an offer was made which
he refused, because it was inadequate.—(Hoar, hear.)
That was a point blank contradiction to the first allege-.
tion. The second allegation was that Bishop Allen bad
been bound by Lord Melbourne not to renew the lease
during his incumbency. The Hon. Gentleman had now
withdrawn that allegation, and admitted that he had no
reason to make it.

Mr. HORSMAN—I do not admit anything of the
kind.

Mr. GLADSTONE—If the Hon. Member did not
admit that, he had, at all events, made a great alteration
in the original allegation he formerly stated as one of
fact. He now stated it as ono entirely of inference and
presumption, and it was on that ground alone the state-
ment rested, that he did not mean to renew the lease of
Horfield Manor. The letter of Bishop Allen to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which be offered them
the it use of Horfield Manor, showed that he had no in-
tention of sacrificing his rights, because he proposed to
hand over the estate to them on condition that they

would build a palace for his residence. Then the Hon-
Member made, what he could not help thinking and
saying was a very remarkable statement respecting
Bishop Monk. That statement was that he knew no-
thing of moral obligation, but he was determined to stand
on his legal right.%
Mr. HORSMAN—I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. GLADSTONE repeated that was his decided
impression of the statement of the Hon. Gentleman. Be
had imputed to the bishop that, either in writing or in
words, ho had stated that he knew nothing of moral ob..
ligation, and was determined to stand upon his legs'

rights. Did the Hon. Gentleman adhere to that?
Mr. HORS \IAN—I adhere to all that I said before;
but I do not it wept the representation of the Right Hoy*
Gentleman.

Mr. GLADSTONE did not wish to misrepresent
the Hon. Gentleman, but he would only say that the
principal of these charges had entirely failed. Well,
then, he understood that another capital point of the
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 had not given one tittle of evidence to sup'
port it, and it was important because it bad been states
elsewhere, and the Hoe. 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
of some technicalities. These appeared to him to be
the moat material allegations in the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman, and they had all vaaiArd away on being
subj.cted to the test of examination, nor had the Holt-
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
.6

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 Hcefield Manor. Bar
he held in his hands another letter from the bishop. in
which he did not treat the mere idea of the renewal o'e
the lease as disparaging and injurious. His own word/
were, that it would be disparaging to his character if be
were to renew the lease on the same tenure of lives. 16
was to that, and not the mere renewal that he referred,
and therefore that charge passed away like all the others.
Mr. HORSMAN— When was the letter published?
Mr. GLADS'IONE—If the lion. Gentleman thought
the iiistiop of Gloucester capable of using fabricated and
forged documents to support his statements, there WO
an coo or the case.

Mr. HORSMAN—I quoted from the blue hooka."'
was that pamphlet of equal authority?
Mr. GLADS TONE was nut quoting anything cone
tradictory to what had been stated by the Hoe.
Gen lt man. He was merely showing that the biehoP
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 he
has done."—(Hear, hear.) Ile was not so sure of that-
The bishop was both lessor and lessee.—(A laughs)
The Honourable Member for Guildford, who laugheav
only laughed at his own mistake, and showed hoe,
little he understood the matter. The bishop had great
powers, and public opinion would hold him responsible
for the use be made of these powers. He must, there'
fore, say, as far as he had been able to follow the state'
merits of the Honourable Gentleman, that he had efl'
tire.y failed in proving these statements, and that he
had not shown reasonable care before making thelo'
The Bishop of Gloucester had only exercised his tiO'
doubted rights as an ecclesiastical proprietor. He alight
agree with the Hon. Member in thinking these right°
were too great—that they rested en a wrong feundaticab
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 steal);
with the most munificent intentions towards the Church'
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gladstone) had full coati'
deuce in his honour, and that he would act on the prir,
ciples he bad laid down for his guidance with respee;
to Horfield Manor—that he would still act in what IA;
been described by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners °'
a " liberal" spirit. It seemed clear that his intenti°9
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. n'e
hoped the generosity of these intentions would be take°
into consideration, and that the future acts of the bishoP
would be left to be visited with censure if he did notes
up to them; but he called upon the House not to 013'
demn him beforehand.
Alter a few words in explanation from Dit
HORSMAN,
Sir J. GRAHAM expressed his regret at finding this
discussion going on when he entered the House, and 13°
was not sure that it was for the public benefit that tb;
discussion should be allowed to proceed.—(Hear, hetir'al
But he was afraid that his silerce might be misconstrtle4
and therefore felt bound to state briefly his opinion. Pi
had not been appointed a member of the EcciesiatioS.
Commission until 1841, and he quite agreed that the
press nt state of the matter was nut, in many reepeetst
satisfactory, especially in the distinction between tP
episcopal and the common funds.—(Loud cries of '•
hear.") He thought such a distinction was most injurio"
not only to the public, but to the prelates thenaselfes'
and he rejoiced that last year a remedy had Leen si)
plied to this particular evil, and hoped that would ii°fi
been accepted as an indication that other reforms wood
follow. He bad no acquaintance with the Bishop °
Gloucester and Bristol, save that arising from such inter(
course as arose from bitting at the common board °
which they were members, and he was surprised ths,,',
looking at the high reputation of the bishop ass schols'
and a gentle mati, and one who was anything but Dig
gai dly in pecuniary matters—(Hear, hear)—sn
charges shoue) have been made against him —(Heer''
ihe high reputation he had sustained at the Universil
of Cambridge, his character in his own diocese, and lb
fact that be was now approaching 70 years of age;
raving during his long life sustained the reputation 0' ;
scholar and a gentleman, made him deeply regret tbli
any transaction should have occurred which the H°l3
Member considered it his duty to bring before the BO;
in the terms he had.—(Hear, hear.) He must say, h°":
ever, that the part which he had taken on the Cousso;
sion, had led him to entertain no doubt whatever, eitbe-
of the high character or munificent intentions of tbefi
bishop. Ho had a right to exercise the powers invest
in him, and believed he intended to do so tor the benefit°
the diocese. He only wished they could have a free coif
ference where the Hon. Gentleman might enter /o'4
discussion with the bishops.—(Hear, hear.) He would
find these Right Reverend Prelates preternaturally elefOr
in words,—( Laughter.) But he put it to the Hon. Gen
'
tleman, was it really worth while to hold up these Prr„
lutes as robbers, devastators, and plunderers? The bit,
terest enemy of the Church could not use worse le%
gunge, and he must say be almost blushed to hear etlef
expressions. He was quite sure that the Bishop Id
Gloucester's reputation for piety and morality wobilt
survive the imputations which had been cast upon it
the matter now under the consideration of the House. to
Sir B. HALL was quite confident that good would
arise to the public out of the discussion of the quec
Lion now under the consideration of the House.—(lief);
hear.) What he now principally rose for was, to e
press a hope that the Government would appoint a C°:o
mission with power and instructions to go into s.ij
whole question of the temporalities of the Church,
to so constitute that Commission that a satisfactory °ll
count would be given of such temporalities in e'siid
parish. He wished to ask the Right Honourable as-;
tleman, the Member for the University of Cambridgeso,
question on a matter which had come under his autl3 0
rity, namely, whether the return made by the bish de,
of the gross income of their sees, was a faithful r ;
turn of the incomes of those bishops ? The bish°llo
were required to make a return to the Ecclesiastics
Commissioners of the full value of the profits of their
sees, as derived by them, and they had made a reta:eci
but he was given to understand that they had graov,,it
leases either for their trustees, or for the benefit of tbj,
own families ; but inasmuch as no money had P°55:3130
that no account had been rendered of the matter in
return. He found that the Bishop of Durham had rot
ceived 79.0001. more in that way than was fiCCOUnted,•
in the fines, and he wished to ask the Right Hon. lirseof
tleenan whether he could inform Lim that the bishop "tip
greeted any leases for the benefit of his trustees or for° )30
and whether the full value had been set upon them if
had? 010
Mr. GOULBURN was not prepared to answer t
to
question put to him by the Right Hon. Baronet, oj3
having had any intimation that such a question tv°.do
be put to him. He, however, knew that the prioc,i'to
laid down by the Ecclesiastical Cemmissioners tense riff,
give a fair result. With respect to the Bishop of had
don, he was enabled to state that in the leases he skt,
made he made sacrifices of fines which, under other
cumstancei of lotting, be might have obtained. ;Re
Sir B. HALL thought that the Right Hon. Gelibiae
marl misunderstood the question whichhe put to od
The Right Hon. Gentleman would find in the 0°1,03
return, p. 234, that the Bishop of London in 184340,
received 13 5191., and that he had granted leases to ,P.
self to the amount of 12,0001., and yet the return
.70
peered to show only 2,161/. The return, therefore,
what he should call a fallacious return.
Mr. GOULBURN could bear testimony thitt tie
Bishop of London had made very large sacrifices to
granting of leases. He granted leases from Yesof
year, whereas had he granted there iii the orciieari
the whet, eold after sepie.en d.
Sir R. INGLIS was glad to Lave an oppertuDiot):;"
doing justice to a Right Rev. Prelate (the Bisbepitst•
Gloucester) whose reputation htid that night be