The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-15 00:00:00

I.IPIA,LAL P4ItLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 14.
The LrIRD CHANCELLOR took his seat un the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
THE CRYSTAL PALACE.
Lord CA.MYBELL presented a petition from certain
ladies and gentlemen, among whom were Justine Cress-
well and a Noble Earl a Member ot that flous., praying
their L irdships not to consent to the continuance ot the
,Crystal Palace. These pets loners resided in the neigh-
bourhood, and had therefore a greater interest
in its removal than the petitioners from Aberdeen
and places at a distance could have in its continuance.
The Noble Lord quoted the Quarterly Review to show
that a winter garden would be most insalubrious. The
best use to which it could be put, if continued, would be
a shower bath, for it was that now during every storm.
This was the last opportunity he should have of
troubling their Lordships on the subject, for on Monday
he should go circuit, but he could r.ot believe that Par-
liament would acquiesce in the breach of faith ve.icti
would take place if it were continued.

PETIrioNs.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from
Tipperary and other places in Ireland against the Ec-
cleeitnitical Titles Assumption Bill. He also presented a
petition from the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman
Catholic Church iu Ireland against the Bill, because its
provisions militated ugliest the privileges of the Raman
Catholic Church, with which no secular power had any
right to meddle.
PUNJAUB 800 FY.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUG El asked what bad
been done with regard to the Puiejeub booty. The usual
coarse was to memorialize the Court of Directors for the
distribution of the booty.
Lord BROUG HTON said ehat was precisely the
course which bad been adopted.
HORFIELI) MANOR -ESTATE. -
The Bishop of OXFORD moved that copies of the
correspondence touching the Hot field Manor Estate be-
tween the Copyhuld Commissioners and the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, be laid on the table. He
moved for these papers on behalf of an absent
orother, who had, as he believed, been most grievously
misrepresented in regard to this matter. He should
sesame that every mis-statement which had been made
nett been accidental, and that the parties making them
had been actuated by the purest motives. I; had
been charged that his Right Rev. Friend, when he
had succeeded to the diocese of Bristol, was
morally and equitably bound to deal differently
with the marsor of Hut-field from any other part of the
property of his diocese, that he had sought to make a
oargain with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a bargain
which had been prevented by the intervention et a Mem-
her of the other House of Parliament. Now, he would
-how that the Bishop of Gloucester received the estate
ot Horfield manor upon precisely the same conditions on
which he received every other portioti of the property of
the see of Bristol. He had done with that property
what the Legislature intended he should do with every
portion of the property of the see. He had entered iutu
ttegotiations with the Commissioners tor the purpose of
carrying out some singularly liberal views with respect
to the Church to which he belonged. The Right Rev.
Prelate bad taken such steps as be thought best calcu-
lated to forward those views, but he would nut now state
what they were, lent it might be supposed he had been
famed by the clamour which had been so unjustly raised
against him. and not by his own tree will. The state•
,scut against him was, first, that because his predeces-
sera bad refused to renew the lease in order that the
-state might tali into the Church, his Right Rev. Friend
lad ieftteted injury by doing so. For his part, be (the
t-liehop of Oxford) never knew a case in which every
step of the preceediegs had been so entire ly misrepre-
sented, and in which trial had been so mixed up with
falsehood. New one predecessor of his Right Rev.
"'fiend, namely, Bishop Grey, had been negotiating with
ti,e lease() for a new lease when he died. It had
(wen.
alleged that Bishop Allen, the next in succession,
(lad eiven a pledge to Lord Melbourne that he
touldc .net renew; yet the fact was that Lord
had lett it entirely in his own di,cre•
Melbourne' bo.unrdne
too, had bean about renewing when
ne was trent'erreto .
f d the see of Ely. Ia the
Committee on
Scclesiestical Leases it had been proved
that *nen tenures athat of Horfield were very injurious.
quence some correspondence
to 1842 it bad been eimeured that the bishop was abeat
ham and the Eeclesiastical
hoa
dr e nteawk,e
hand
atchea tb
ei
weer:
Commissioners. No such correspondence, although
some °
dlu 847b7ewn
new scheme had been
started by the Commissienere as to the charges which
e
ought to be levied on certain see's, it had been thought
teat the unitel diocese of Glouceeeter and Bristol °tide&
to bear a larger charge; and it war` intended to add the
1-lorfield.Manor estate to the episcopal fund, after the
pseseut bishop should be removed. To that he had ob• e
jeered as being unjust to his successor, nd some nego-
tiations(Hear.) accordingly took place between him end tne
commissioners, with the view of entering upon some ar-
rangement relative to the property. The bishop had
considered that the peculiar holding of that estate wos
a most injurious tenure to the Church, inasmuch as it
prevented the possibility of improvement. He had never
intended to renew the lease on the same terms upon
which it had been originally granted, but never enter-
tained the idea of not granting some kind of a lease
the Right Reverend Prelate here referred to and
read some extracts from letters from the Bishop
of Gloucester to the Commissioners, in which he had
stated that he treated the imputation of renewing the
tease "as heretofore" with con•empt. Another accusa-
tion was that in 1848 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
having desired their secretary to remind the bishop of
his moral obligation not to renew the lease, the bishop
answered that he knew nothing of any moral obligateeu
on the subject, but that he had a 1-gal right, which he
would not alienate except for 11,5004 Now not only
was no letter of the kind alluded to written by the secre-
tary, but the bishop himself, in February, 1848, opened
A negotiation with the Commissioners, and offered to
part with his interest to them. That proposal was re-
ferred to a Select Committee, of which Sir J. Graham
was the chairman. Trey entertained the proposal, and
a communication was made to the bishop announcing to
aim that the proposal had been laid before the Ftnauce
Committee, and that they had expressed an opinion of
the liberality of the offer.--(Hear.) The negotiation
went on. It had been asserted that the Commissioners
endeavoured privately to transfer the estate to themselves,
out that when the deed of transfer had been transmitted
the solicitor refused to be party to the Lair. The fact
was that the Commissioners having satisfied themselves
that there was neither t quitabl-, legal, nor moral re-
eraint on the bishop to act &If rently with the Elorfield
estate from the teller estatee or his see, consulted one or
.he most eminent c-nveyancers as t i the best mode of
ranswitting it, who gave an opinion that
the proper Way
~f transmitting it was not by deed, but by order iu Coun-
cil.—(Lleur.) Such an order was drawn up, and sent, as
usual lu such cases, fur the approval of the law ofli
.ters of the Crown, who at the end of the month returned
it with the answer that there were leg .1 difficulties in
the way, us consequence of the limited power given by
the Act of passing such an order. On that ground atone
-vas the order in Council set aside.—(Hear.) Feelitee
chat the matter might be misrepresented, the bishop
called on the Commissioners to express their opinion on
he. subject; and at a meeting of the board, at which the
A.rchbishop of Canterbury was present as chairman, a
resolution was drawn up and agreed to, to the effe,.t that
the bishop having been under no obtigetion, 1 gal or
otherwise, to deal with the flor6-1.1 errete differently
from any other estate of his see, and having made vvith
regard to it a most li,laersl off-r, the board ha i been
noxious to avoid ell needless delay in bringing the neg
detion to a close. The remaining charge was that on the
dropping of the last life the bishop had renew- d the
lease in a way in which he had fetid he would never do.
Now, if his Right Rev. Friend bad evaded the law, by
.elling it to a second party, in a way to allow him to
transform it into a lease fur three lives, then he would
have dune the thing with which he had bee., chsrg'-d;
but. to prevent that, he had put the name of his secre-
tary in the lease, retaining in his own hands full power
to carry on those improvements which from the first it
end been his object to effect, and had already laid out a
large sum in enfranchising the copy hold. In ord.. rto
avoid any reproach of grasping at income, he gave up
his legal claim to what he held in commeadani to an
amount equal to what ho retained.—(Bear.) On this
point it had been remarked that what he held in coot
mendum was only for lily own life, and that it would not
I:einefit his children to the same extent as the renewal
..t• the lease. The terms which his Right Rev. Friend
had stipulated for in his negotiation with the Commie-
stoners was 11,5001., and he had accidently learned the
way in which he proposed to apply that amount. It
appeared that he had engaged to advance a sum of
5,0001. for the erection of a college at Bi istol, provided
•it were repaid to his children. Circumeiances oc•
Burred which rendered it problematical whether his
children would receive it, and in ca-e they del not h •
proposed that of the 11500/. the sum of 5,0001. should
ge to his family, and 6 5001. to endow small livings in
the diocese of Bristol.—(dear.) Such was the answer
he bad to make to the charges brought against his Right
Rev Friend. In a letter which his Right Rev. Friend
had written to him he stated that under present circum-
stances he should not enter upon arty promise or engage-
ment with respect to his particular views and intentions
on this subject. " These, said his Right Rev. Friend,
"must be inferred from what I have already don,.
Speeternuragendo. True, I have ulterior views; but I
will not at present make any engagement with regard to
them; for if I were to do so it would be attributed to
tear of him who, per fas et nefas, is determined to de-
stroy my character. ",(Hear.) His Right Rev. Friend
had, without fear or favour, won his way to an eminent
station in the national Church, and had left this coun-
try sick in body, depressed in spiri; aed he was sure any
expression of their Lordships' sympathy would be dear
to him under these unexampled misrepresentations.
The Bishop of LONDON said the Bishop of Glouees-
ter had been his intimate friend for 45 years, and he
could assure their Lordships that the interests of the
Church might safely be left in his hands.
Lord CAMPBELL bore testimony to the character
of the Right Rev. Prelate, as being that of a kind-
heart- d and generous man, and added that it had been
demonstrated that there was not the smallest pretence
fir saying that he held Horfield in a different manner
from any other estate of his see. He believed the
Bishop of Gloucester had consecrated more chutchee
within his diocese since he had been appointed to it than
had been consecrated within it since the Reformation up
to his time.
The Earl of HARROWBY bore testimony to the cor-
rectness of the statement of the Right Rev. Prelate as
regarded the transactions with the board. Tee Bishop of
Gloucester had not departed from the usual ceuree of
procedure. It was with regret that he noticed a desire
czitdieg to presume everything evil of those who were at
the head of the Church.
The motiou was then agreed to.