§ MR. HORSMANrose to put the question, of which he had given notice, when the Ecclesiastical Commission would present another general report, none having been presented since 1847, and also whether any and what proceedings had been taken either by them or the Bishop of Gloucester since 1848 in the case of the estate of Horfield? It would be remembered that two years ago an arrangement had been made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Bishop of Gloucester, under an Order in Council, which, however, had not been carried out. There was considerable doubt as to what was intended to be done; and, perhaps, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would explain what course the Commissioners intended to take?
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, with regard to the first question, that no report had yet been presented, nor could he say when such report would be drawn up. With respect to the second question, the arrangement between the Commissioners and the Bishop of Gloucester was referred to the law officers of the Crown, and they gave their opinion against the legality of that arrangement, and it had consequently not been carried out. Since 1849 the Commissioners had made no return relative to the Horfield estate.
§ MR. HORSMANasked what security there was of the estate coming into the hands of the Commissioners after the demise of the bishop, according to the terms of the Order in Council. Also in what position the Commissioners stood in regard to the estate, and whether this part of the arrangement would be enforced or not?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Gentleman was assuming a state of things which the bishop denied the Order in Council effected, and which the law officers held, when the matter was referred to them, it did not.
§ Subject dropped.