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

BANKING D

Proptiotorecapttal.. 14,553,000
Rest • • 3,N2,194
Public deposits (In-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt,Sav-
Inge-banks, and D-
ividend accounia).. 4,319,318
Other deposits ...... 10,440,630
Sevon day and other
sills•. •• .• •• .... 1,175,054

X 23,640,426

Dated the 17th day of July, 185

CJURSE OF EXCHA
•• •...•• •.11 164 u
Ditto. three months.. 11 1$
'tottcrdam ........ • • 11 18%
Brussels.. • • .• 25 22 h
Ilamourgh • • 51.8. 13 7%
Parls, 3 clays'sight 25 2h
Ditto. 3 months .... 25 2.h
614.r.1.1111e6 •• •• 25 0
80urdeaux......... •
trarilrlorton Mains.... 11E'
Berlin • • .. • • ...... • • ••
Vienna, effee. 50."... 11 46
Trieste, 11 47
Yetersbargk,Sll.Rble.. 37%
%Wild •• •• •• •• •• •• •• 49%
Cadis •• •.• •• .• •• •• •• 50%
Barcelona ............
5cythe................

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COM lIONS. July 17.
Mr. BEADLAM presented a petition in favour of the
Arrest of Absconding Debtors' Bill.
SUPPLY.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY rose to call the attention o
the First Lord of the Admiralty to the want of accom,
modation for the repair of steam-vessels at Hawiboline;
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 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 England. 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 BOLDERO called the attention of the Admi-
ralty to the tact that although Sir H. Smith 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 12th Lancers had to by
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 troops, or that any uuneces-
sary delay was cawed in the embarkation cf tete troops.
Dr. POWER reminded the House that both the First.
Minister of the Crown and the late Lcrd Auckland
pledged themselves that a naval estabdsharent should be
maintained at Cork. He remembered being one of a
deputation who waited on Lord Auckland a few years
ago, when be was First Lord of the Admiralty, and be
distinctly pledged hiarielt 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 bis flag on a recent occasion. He also
complained that the horses of the 12. h 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 hitn.—(A laugh.) As fur the horses of the 12th
Lancers it was th.,ught better that they should be
mounted at the Cape.
Admiral BOWLES said that the late Government al-
ways looked on the her hour 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 net 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 lett
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 Heuee then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... 104
Against it ... ... 26
Majority —7B
THE LIORFIELD ESTATE.

Mr. P. MILES next tattled the attention of the House
to the case of the Bisbrip of Gloucester and Bristol, and the
charges lately brought against the Right Rev. Prelate.
His object in bringing tha question forward was to clear
the character of his Right R. v. Friend, and to show that
the charges prererred by the Hon. and Learned Member
for Cockermouth were totally without fuuudation. 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 be grounded that charge on the
evidence of two witne:ses, and the fact that the two pre-
vious bishops who held the see made no such 1, ase. 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•
Um of the renewal of the lease of the Horfield Manor,
the Bishop of Gloucester bad 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 lett 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 Hou.
Gentleman stated that the bishop was under a moral
abligation 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. Io 1847 there was a ueotta-
lion with the Eiteleaiastical Commissioeere for tne sale
of the estate, told sub-eqeently uu off r was mace by the
bishop to Felt it for 11,5001.. but that wan broken eff and
nut concluded, and that traws.acf km was known to ail the
other bishops. From that time to the de oh of Dr.
Sbadwell nothieg was dune to eff et a sale. The bishop
then appointed Mr. Holt, 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 &lel
Princesses.—(Elear, hear,) Gleat stress hod been laid
on the value 01 the eacat. , which was said to amount te
a rental of 3,4001., whereas it did not exceed 555/,
which was also subject to deductions. When he ape
pointed his own secretary, that gentleman gave up a
living of between 7,0001. and 8,000/. a year, and there-
fore he would derive a less income; and as a slur had
been thrown on his title he uppoina d his decal secretary
to secure the property. Ho 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 tboughr, to quote the
words of the Hon. Member, " that the R'ght Rev.
Prelate would be again able to hold up his head as an
honest man."
Mr. HORSMAN said the Hon. Gentleman had cer-
tainly made his statement with great fairness, and where
he had censored 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 th 3 Biahep 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 Csmasittee
of that House, but the Hun. Gentleman made no refer-
ence to that evidence. What was the statement that he
(Mr. Horsenan) made? It was this, that when the
13athop of Gloucester emcee+ did 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 be could net obtain an
adequate fine. He also waved 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 upon 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 pretested the see should have
the benefit rather than his own children, and would ra-
ther let the lease lapse under such circumstances. 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 man 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 Grey'e death to Let d
Melbourne, with regard to the Uortield estate, and that
he knew au attempt had been made for a renewal, and
that he knew that no attempt had been made tor a
renewal during Bishop Allen's time. because Dr. Shea-
well would have informed him if such had been the
case. He (Slr. Horsman) did nor say there was direct
evidence of these transactions, but that there was strong
circumstantial videnee 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 fur lives. Now, how was this
evidence met? In another place witnesses were referred
to, tepresented as of unimpeachable veracity. First,
there was the evidence of Mr. Vincent Stukey, who
staid that the bishop refused to renew because the
least. would not give the price aAted. Lie added that

what he stled was not of his own knowledge, but what
he learned from others. Ho furth,r stated that the pre-
sent bishup would not take the fine offered. Every an-
swer of th!s gentitnan was given in the most cautious
tninner, and showed that he knew nothing of the trans-
action. The Right Reverend Bishop who defended the
ftiehop of Gloucester said these sentiments were derived
from a surveyor in the neighbourhood, who was notorious
fir his ovposiiion 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 Biahop of Bristol and the
lessee referring to bishop Grey, not Bishop Allen, who
MIS 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 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.—
(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 t- rms 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 to
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-
ralities of both, the one being represented at 9251., and
the other at upwards of 3,0001. 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 wee 11,1071.
In 14 years, therefore, the bishop had an increase of
income of 32,0001., over the 5,000/. he was allowed
by Act of Yarliatnenr.—(Hear, hoer.) He thought
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were wrong in not
making proper stipulations as to the property of Her-
field, as their doing so would have prevented the evils
which had taken place, as the Bishop of Gl. ucester had
now renewed the lease of that property for three lives for
the benefit of his family. On a former occasion ho 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 information he received, but they were now
told that the lives placed in the lease were those of three
of the children ot the Royal Femily, The Bishop of
Gloucester, by doing 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
b shop had given up a living of 7001. per annum, but he
found that the living referred to was worth only 5001. a
year, while the Hurfield estate, which he had taken pos-
session of fir three lives, now produced 3 0001. a year,
and in course of the three lives might be worth 30.0001.
a )ear. Here, then, was one ot the most valuable estst,s
of the Church taken possession of by the Ecclesiastical
Cuintnitei, ne re , by virtue of an Order in C.iuncil, alienated
hum the Ch =hotel assigned tor. thr. a lives to the bishop's
family. Now, though the bishop might have a legal right
thus to alit nate the estate, he nuaintaine d there was amoral
obligation upon him net to do so. Even the law was
against granting lung leases of ecclesiastical property, tor
the 13th of Elizabeth condemned the practice, and the
Act .t' 1836, appointing fixed incomes to the bishops,
evidently let ant that tee sum they might receive over
5,0001., the sum specifisd in the Act, was to be held by
them in trust, and accounted fur to the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners. It was no answer to
say that the Bishop ot Gloucester had only done what
other bishops had done, for be held that of all others the
bishops of the Church, in the management of the pro-
perty apperteining to their office, ought to act so as to
be an example to others; but was such the case? So
tar from its being so, did they nut find that the bishops
were the very worst adintuistrators? For how many
churches might not have been Ludt, and schools erected,
had not the sums bequeathed generations up,
by charitable individuals, for charitable purpeses,
been alienated from the purposes for which they were
origiratly intended, by the prelates of the Church?
lie, therefore, condemned the system of allow-
ing those paniea 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 txtended, and crime diminished by it'
unit the general well-being of the community greatly ad-
valiced.
Alr. GLADSTONE said, when it was arranged that
they should depart trues toe ordinary business of the
night to enter upon an expatiation 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 ill vinificiation of hunaelt, which he for one thought
was much needed—but that he should have departed—
sor to the inconvenience of the House end the delay
ot public business—to such topics as the future condition
of Hurfisid Manor, to the revenues of the see of Bristol
and Gloucester, the conduct of the bishop of that see,
and thence to the reveuttea and conduct of the bishops of
all the other sees ot the Church.—(Bear, hear.) With
reference to the state of the law on these matters, he
agreed with every word that had ialleu from the lion.
Gentleman.—(hear, hear.) Lies fully
t wayullyctoeiceuertrheidegastteo
dthee.
badness of our legislation; but
tiounce bad legislation, and another to judge with if:-
vsrity those who merely act under that bad system
which the Legislature bad established. It was another
thing, not teerety to deal severely with, but to misrepre-
sent • hew, us the Hon. Gentleman had deee,—(Bear,
hear) lie would pass lightly over 'owe of the :Awe-
ments of the Hon. Gentleman, for he confessed he did
not uhderataud some of those with regard to the see of
Gloucester. The Honourable Gentleman said the
revenue of that two was 10,0004 some iiuuereds in 184$,
and that fi um epi.copal aeurees alone the bishop hall
received 34.000/ more than he ought to have received.
(Mr. llorsuitsu dissented.) The Honourable Gentleman
seie, that including the two commeraLmv which yet th,d
1,700/ the rev, hue of the biainip in that year had be-eu
11,000/ ; did tie not strj, this, ? (Mr. Ilensmee—Yee )
Well, then, taking that 1,7001 from the revenue of the
see, that, according to the Hun. Gentleman, would toy,
only 9 30(1 from episcopal sources for that year. But
It tie took the figures us given in the return ordered to
be laid on the tattle of the House of Commons tor that
) ear be found that the revenue or the lirshop of Glou-
cester tor that year was only 6,2001, subject to a oeduc-
twu of about 2001., instead ci 9,3001, as stuted by the
lion. Gentleman. Welt, then, the Hon. Genthenau said
the Bishop of Glouc,ster had ree,ived 34,000/. beyond
what he should have received hens episcopal sources.
Mr. 11011 MAN—I said 34,000/. over his own cal-
culation.
Mr. GLADSTONE—WeII, he would rake it that way.
Over his own calculation. But he could find nothing of
the knd in the returns laid beture the House fur the
last seven years. According to these returns the net
revenue or the see was—
For the) ear 1844
••• 1845
1846
•.• 1848
1849 .....
And for 1850
That was fur the last seven years, and he must say he
was pubsied to know by wthheetinfiggeuerueis thehtyew
thelio Bishop
iGeenp-
tleman could make out by se
had received 34.000/. more than he was entitled to.
Mr. HOBS al AN said he reek the 34,0001. on the
Bishop's 04u 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 net bear the statemeut that the income of
he bishop in 1848 was 11,000/., and he wanted the Lion.
Geiltleeamantoehowhowhei sulid tolls justify that statement.
—(Hear, hear.) He entered
lute the spirit of
every syllable uttered by the Hoe. Gentleman in the
i
abstract as to the duties of bishops, and the spirit and
laway
wasin bound which
totthey say at the
nd name
nn
should tion—that boundbu
t
be
teh duties;t
with
that our law t
he
pro-
needed upon a totally
different
llii-
nisters and the Legislature of the day; and if we placed
them in triat position, it was not for the Hon. Gentle-
man coetCtmlae edluttoth
ut
he bishops to the world, a
Co cense duvets 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 gu to the statements originally made by the
Honourable Gentleman with respect to Hot field Manor.
ese
hthemselves
a Be ,t 7et
them, divided
separate questions. In the
first
Gloucester has
pursued a course which calls for the censure of
hcl whetherntt9t was
o two Bishop of understood be
this House; and, In the second place, whether the Hon.
Gentlemen had exercised due diligence in the examinee
Lion of the fared before making these statements *pewit
a prelate of the Church. The Hon. Gentleman had said
tee elortield Manor was worth a great deal now, and
tbat it
.i4would be much more vuluuble in future. He had
n
saying that in taking the course ho had
done be
onehsle mac la n
acting under the conviction that he had
legal power to du 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 or engagements
and breach of faith charged against him.—(Hear, hear.)
The lion. Gentleman would agree with him in ore thing,
namely, Viet under present circumstances the bishop
could not,
as a gentleman, &clam what his intentions
were at the present moment. It he were to do so it
would deprive of all grace whatever he meant to do in
future in favour of the Church. He had a right to say,
' I will use my own discretion as to the time and niau-
ner in which I will do what I itaterel to do," But in the
meantime the House had no ground for condemnation.
It he used the great powers in his possession wrongly,
then condemn him, but not at present, because the law

had inr-seed him with these grLat powers, and at present
they had no evidence whatev.4 that. he intended to mis-
use them.---(Hear, hear.) But what wad the state:
meet of the Hon. Member? In the first place he sc+l.ci
that Bishop Grey at a CPI tAin period had geelarEd
bid
determination not to r6liew the lease of Horfield Manor,
but to let it run out for the 13,upfit ,:f the Church. Had
that allegatton been sustained? On the contrary, it had
been entirely broken down and by no ono more than the
Hon. Gentleman himself, because be 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.—(Hear, hear)
That was a point blank contradiction to the first allege'
tion. The second allegation was that Bishop Allen lied
been bound by Lord Melbourne not to renew the lease
during his incuinhency. The Hon. Gentleman had now
withdrawn that allegation, and admitted that ho had 10
reason to make it.
Mr. HORSMAN—I do not admit anything of the

kind.
Mr. GLADSTONE—If the Hon. Member did Dot
admit that, he had, at all cycles, made a great alteratioo.
in the original allegation he formerly stated as one
fact. He now stated it as one entirely of inference at'
presumption, and it was on that ground alone the state-
ment rested, that he did not mean to renew the lease h°o'
Horfield Meteor. The letter of Bishop Allen to t,
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which be offered the
the lease of Horfield Manor, showed that he had no itro
tendon of sacrificing his rights, because he proposed
hand over the estate to them on condition that We.f
would build a palace for his residence. Then the 12-11
Member made, what he could not help thinking fr,
saying was a very remarkable statement ropeeiire
Bishop Monk. That statement was that ho kneel I'll
thing of moral obligation, but be was determined to stall
on his legal rights.
Mr. HORSMAN—I said nothing of the kind. j
Mr. GLADSTONE repeated that was his decidt
impression of the statement of the Hon. Gentleman. II.:
had imputed to the bishop that, either in writing or tb
was „
words, he hid stated that be knew nothing of mural °
ligation, and as determined to stand upon his leg
tights. Did the Hon. Gentleman adhere to that?
Mr. HORSMAN—I adhere to all that I said before;
but I do not accept the representation of the Right 11°°'
Gentleman.
Mr. GLADSTONE did not wish to misreprel,ete
the Hon. Gentleman, but he would only say thet.c'elit
principal of these charges had entirely failed. "
tbta
then, he understood that another capital point of
case was, that when au arrangement had been made "i;
tween the bishop and the Ecclesiastical Commissioaerll'o
was stopped because it was detected as a job. Did itas
Hon. Gentleman adhere to the principle of that st°„,
ment? He bud not given one tittle of evidence to $7:l
port it, and it was important because it had been &tato
elsewhere, and the Hoe. Member knew it had, that tbe,
arrangement had not failed on its merits, but simply opt
cause the lawyers had advised it to begieen upon atise hs
or some technicalities. These appeared to him tes°,o,
the moat material allegations in the speech of the Ring
theetlemau, and they had all vattiohed away oebee-00,
eubjected to the teat of examination, nor had the
' Gentleman, in his speech of nearly two houra,',,e
night, said any hing that could sustain these 10,10
dons. But the Hon. Member had made much 'Tell
letter, said to have been written by the biabop, in
he said it would be diaperagieg to his character l'etie
thought of renewing the lease of airfield Mena. its
he held in his hands another letter from the biaboe; of
which he did not treat the mere idea of the renessod
the lease a 5 disparaging and itijurieue. His own "• be
,
were, that it would be cisparaging to his character ' SI
were to renew the lease oil the same tenure of lives. el,
was to that, and not the mere renewal that he refetret
and therefore that estate° passed away like all the
Mr. LIORS MA N— Wron was the letter publiateuoill
Mr. GLADS't ONE—If the Hun. Gentleman tb°lTeel
the Bishop of Gloucester capable of using laericst'u,
torged documents to suppurt his stateu.erate, titer'
an Mr.
ot the case. 1/
HORS M AN—I quoted from the blue hecli
was that pamphlet of equal authority ? title
Mr. GLADSTONE was not quoting anythiegteeee
tradictory to what had been stated by the ,"1,09
Gen I. man. He was merely showing that the Oculti
considered it diaperegiug to suppose that hew es-all
renew the lease on the same term of lives on ',„—lto
bold. Well, but you say " that is the very thieehot
has done."—(Hear, hear.) Ile was not so sure of t h,)
The bishop was both lessor and leasee,—(A. lavgardo
The Honourable Member for Guildford, who latigiol
only laughed at his own mistake, and showejd,stest
little he understood the matter. The bishop ha°,7
powers, and public opinion would hold him resP°,,lte
fur the me he made of these powers. He mug, -:ota
fore, say, as far as he had been able to follow the:" ev
ments of the Henourable Gentleman, that he 11,4" et
bs
tireiy failed in proving these eiseements, and t''e-st*
hai not shown reasonable care before making
The Bishop of Gloucester had only exercised bee
doubted rights as an ecclesiastical proprietor. se`" eill°
agree with the Hon. Member in thinking these
were too great—that they rested on a wrong fouel,tee
and ought to be amendsd; but that wao a totally jaw
tent question from their exercise while they dideiel'
and it was hard and cruel that a bishop should 1'4344
up to public odium who believed that he had beee!„-es'
with the moat munificent intentions towards the UP96'
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Gladstone) had full
r
dence in his honour, and that he would act on thltro;
ciples be had laid down for his guidance with re,tss
to Horfield Manor—that he would still act in whit'. l
been described by the Ecclesiastical Commissionrr-teS
a •' liberal" spirit. It seemed clear that his elle"or,
wets to apply the money for renewal to the very'e; teS'
poses the Hun. Gentleman had in view, nanseil'
augmeetetion of the smaller livings in his dioceiesi
hoped the g. nerosity of these intentions would be,staelt
into consideration, and that the future acts of the wt-ttis',
would be lett to be visited with censure if be did ll°
up to them; but ha called upon the House not t°
demn him beforehand.
Atter a few words in explanation froes
HORS STAN,
Sir J. GRAHAM expressed his regret at finow'el
discussion going on when he entered the Houset!l,lrl
was not sure that it was fur the public benefit,bast
oiscussion should be allowed to proceed.—(;fear, rp
But he was afraid that his silence might be misco°s" 111
and therefore telt betted to state briefly his opinil;titka
had not been appointed a member of the Etielles,:t ff,„
Commis/thin until 1841, and he quite agreed ware'
present state of the matter was not, in many r;01,1/1
satisfactory, especially in the distinctiuu betenkrel
episcopal and the common funds.—(Loud cries of :;oter
hear.") He thought such a distiuction was most Waist!
not only to the public, but to the prelates therPo of
and he rejoiced that last year a remedy had SI 51
plied to this particular evil, and hoped that wolitu,s
teen accepted as an indication that other reforees,o9,
follow, lie had no acquaintance with the Bis'ofFe
Gloucester and Bristol, save that arising from such
course as arose from sitting at the common 1)°,00,t"
which they were members, and he was surprise
Itiolitng at the high rt putesioe of the btshep as ti
and a geed. matt, and one who was anything 17°>0)
M
gnrdly in pecuniary matters—(h ar, hest; 'lest;
charges ahod have been made yigai„" him eat
efeti,
the meltr, petetion he had sustained at the IJulf
~t Catubride,,, his character in his own diocese, livost,/,
fact that he was now approaching 70 years of nofj
having during his long life sustained the le putelt°i
scholar and a ganclk-tuati, made him deeply refire /1;;
any transaction should have occurred which ftleppri
Member considered it his duty to bring before the la);,/./
in the terms he had.— (Hear, hear.) He must teiePetive
ever, that the part et filch he bad taken on the ti°"elith't
sion, had led him to entertain no doubt whatever'af
of the high character or munificent intentions 010(
bishop. He had a right to exerctse the powers
in him, and believed he intended to do so for the beree;
the diecese. He only wished they could have a free tolj
ferenca where the Hon. Gentleman(Huri
hear.)migh einiele;soo:f
discussion with the bishop.
fled these Right Reverend Prelates preternaturally ea;
iu itords.-- Laughter.) But he put it to the LW,' ra
tleteau, was it really worth while to hold up the,i'she ,
tors, and plunderers? "Irs°°o
t res enemy of the Church could not use wail ipei
gunge, and he must say he almost blushed to hear s
laetestas robber, dette
oli
sh°
expressions. no was quite mire that the 111 000
Gloucester's reputation tor piety and moralitid iI
survive the imputations which had been cast q° 70e, Ij
the matter now under the consideration of the ast°'"estie
Sir B. HALL was quite confident that goes' eps:
arise to the public out of the discussion of the filet,
lion now under the consideration of the House. to
hear.) What ho now principally rose for wall' C 5;
press a hope that the Government would appoill. .to
mission with pj
power and instructions to go 01 b• c'
whola question of the temporalities of the Chereri °et
to ao constitute that Commission that 'fact°. e°-
a male e
count would be given of such temporalities 1",80'
perish. He wish std to ask the Right lionourah'.dgete
tleman, the Member for the University of Caseb,floaltle
question on a matter which had come under 1115011`e •
city, namely, whether the return made by tbehol re
of the gross income of their sees, was a filit'hisa,'7,4l
turn of the incomes of those bishops ? The jotted
were required to make a return to the Eecieos i
Commissioners of the full value of the profits levit/
sees, as derived by them, and they had made at atalthel
but he was given to understand that they haut'ef
leases either for their trustees, or for the benefit 00'd
own families ; but inasmuch as no money his°,.'io
that no eccoaut bad been rendered of the nsetlelid,-1
return. He found that the Bishop cf Durbao etei,ta
ceived 79.0001. more in that way than was aceoll; oti'd
in the flues, and he wished to ask the Right Ile°„js'oPe'lf'
tleniau whether he could inform him that the el°,
greeted any leases for the benefit of his trustees °'olo
the
end whether the full value had been set upon
had? .0r 04.
Mr. GOULBURN was not prepared to arl'esttol;
question put to him by the Right Hon. Btir°„" eetyl
having hal any intimation that such a questi°,;rill It
be put to him. He, however, knew that the rade();
laid doers by the Ecclesiastical Commissioncre
give a fair result. With telsect to the Bishop
den, he was enabled to state that in the leaseihar
made he made sacrifices of fines which, under r
, ° sti
ctunttaneea of letting, he might have obtainew oref,
Sir B. HALL thought that the Right 11011 to 001
man misunderstood the question which he 0;0 tette
The Right lion. G-entlernen would find in l'lBol
return, p. 234, that the Bishop of London is to "or,
received 13 5191. and that he had granted leasestetP sr
self to the amount of 12,0001., and yet the refete' ,
peered to show telly 2,1614 The return, ther° Its
what be shoted call a fallacious return. that
Mr. GOULBURN could bear testimony S-s
Bishop of Loudon had made very large sacrifice yePiol
granting of leases. He granted leases fodf • 19 (
I-I • 0,
year, whereas had he granted them in the or'
00'01
the whole fine would have appeared. rol- of' a
Sir R. INGLIS was glad to have an oProishee
doing justice to a Right Ray. Prelate Oils pO9
Gloucester) whose reputation had that ;lig'

Mr. I
Pup° of
itleotnu
country
income
fitll4
hhnt

Af,er
lamter
SUPT
Th,,
NAL iu
On th
148,490
of e.)us
Mr.
this YO
Speech
t!ence

fain, at
France
one wt
tor e(

and e
office
healti
*as ,
Thee
Pent
ueeat
the u

at present
ed to !Die-
the state -
,ce he socl
,tiered his
Ad Niatlor,
rch. Had
I bed
an',
13 than to
I ti letter
stated that
lade which
ear, bear')
irst
Allen had
w the lease
m bad now
ho had a°

An of t

ber did not
t alteration
f
as one 0,
'erenoe an
tl
e the elute:
the lease of
len to tho
iffered tb9
bad 11°2%
Propose
that thel
n the Bedlinking
tespeota
o 'thew tle:
ned to Woe

his decidia
tlemse. 0
iting or 1.,
)f moral 0
l 1
ha
• lee
that?
said before re
Itighsti°°.

blue bo4i'd