§ SIR B. HALLSir, I must claim the indulgence of the House for a moment in consequence of a communication I have received from the Bishop of Winchester, in allusion to a question I put yesterday to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury. It will be in the recollection of the House, that when I brought the question of the Registrarship of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury before the House, I asked the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown a question, to the effect, whether the appointment had been filled up, and whether such appointment had been filled up by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the name of his own son, or by a son of the Bishop of Winchester? I believe that was the exact question I put to the noble Lord. The noble Lord stated, in answer, that the Archbishop of Canterbury had filled up the vacancy with the name of his own son, who was a young man studying in the Temple. It appears, however, from one of those channels of communication which go forth to the public, that I said, "I begged to know from the noble Lord whether the vacancy had been filled by Dr. Sumner with the name of Mr. Sumner, son of the Bishop of Winchester?" and that the noble Lord replied, "it appeared that this office—that was to say, the second reversion to the office—had been given, since Dr. Sumner came to the see, to Mr. Summer, son of the Bishop of Winchester, who was a young man studying in the Temple." This is quite incorrect: because what the noble Lord said was, "it had been filled up by the Archbishop with the name of his own son." I think it due to the noble Lord to state that most distinctly; and therefore I think it right to add what has occurred this morning, as an act of duty I owe to the Bishop of Winchester. The son of the Bishop of Winchester, Mr. Charles Sumner, called upon me this morning, with a letter from his father, with whom I have the pleasure of being acquainted, in which the bishop says—
No son of mine has been appointed to the office in question, or to any office by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and as you have introduced my name in connexion with the subject, I am sure you will see the justice of taking the earliest opportunity of setting me right with the public.Mr. Charles Sumner said it was the more necessary the correction should be made, because he himself was also studying in 1060 the Temple, and he did not wish for a moment to be supposed as having accepted the office in question. The words he made use of were these: "If there is any blame attached to the appointment, those who have received it must be held particeps criminis;" and he desired it to be fully known that he has not received the appointment, but that the Archbishop of Canterbury had given it to his own son. It is, therefore, very clear that neither the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, nor his son, have had anything to do with the appointment.