Lords Sitting of 4 August 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Consolidated Fund; Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland); Cheshire Returning Officer.
2a. Ecclesiastical Patronage; Burial Service (No. 2); Art Unions; Marriages (Ireland) Act Amendment.
Reported. Newfoundland; Militia Ballots Suspension; Ordnance Survey.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of London, from Dalkeith, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath, and against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on that Day.—From Commissioners of Supply of the County of Stirling, against the Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland) Bill.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER AND BISHOPSTOWN CHAPEL.
The EARL of RADNORsaid, that he had given notice of his intention to make some remarks on the statement made to their Lordships relative to the conduct of his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset, who was unable to attend in his place. The attack had been made upon the noble Duke without any notice, and he had therefore had no means of answering it himself, or of asking any Friend to reply to it. The charge made against the noble
332
Duke was for violating an express engagement with respect to the endowment of the chapel at Bishopstown; and the history of the transaction was this: The Duke of Somerset had considerable possessions in the county of Devon, in part of which there was need of additional church accommodation. In the course of the year 1832, the Duke of Somerset built this chapel for the purpose of accommodating the population. It was complete in the spring of that year, and was inspected in the course of the summer by the Duke and the Bishop of Exeter. Some communication took place between them as to the consecration and the intention of the Duke to make an endowment. The consequence was, that early in the month of August the Duke entered into an arrangement with Mr. Shore to do the duty, and agreed, to give him a remuneration of 200 l. Some doubts arose on the question of preferment, and the chapel was not then opened. Communications subsequently took place between Mr. Maberly, the Duke's solicitor, and the secretary of the Bishop; three or four letters passed, and, without any endowment taking place, and without the consecration of the church, the Bishop granted a title to Mr. Shore, who was duly nominated by the then incumbent of the living, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards afterwards died, and a gentleman named Brown succeeded him, and continued to hold the living till 1844, Mr. Shore during all that time doing the duty of the church, and no difficulty arising. In the summer of 1844, Mr. Brown entered into an arrangement with a Mr. Cozens, who came in July to reside on the incumbency, and objected to Mr. Shore's doing the duty, and refused to nominate him; and the Bishop thereupon refused to grant a license. Some judicial proceedings took place, and ultimately the chapel was licensed under the statute, and the church was opened for the performance of religious services according to the doctrines and liturgy of the Established Church. The incumbent proceeded against Mr. Shore in the ecclesiastical court; but still the church had continued open to the present time, and the services had been performed to the great satisfaction of the congregation. The Duke was accused of bad faith in having violated a specific engagement entered into by him never to allow the chapel to be used for other purposes than those of the Church of England; and secondly to endow it; for the Bishop said that when he licensed the

333
chapel, there was a positive engagement to endow it. Now, with respect to the first point, he did not see, on reference to the Act, that it was necessary a chapel should be a Dissenting place of worship because it was licensed under the Act. The certificate under which it was opened was granted by the archdeacon; and the registrar objected that it did not specify the place to be a Dissenting chapel; but the opinion of Mr. now Mr. Justice Erle was taken upon the subject, and he was of opinion that it was not necessary to declare it to be a Dissenting place of worship, because it was licensed under the Act. In point of fact, however, it had not been used as a Dissenting place of worship, for it was used for the services and the sacraments according to the rites of the Church of England. But the principal accusation was, that the noble Duke had forfeited his engagement that he would endow the chapel; and to show the groundlessness of that charge, the noble Earl read the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Maberly, the solicitor of the Duke, and the Bishop's secretary; in which the Duke had no doubt stated his wish to make an endowment; but, as some difficulties might arise as to the patronage and other matters, made no pledge upon the subject. The noble Earl then read the following correspondence:—
"Bedford Row, Sept. 12, 1832.
"Sir—I begin to apprehend that the mutual object of the Duke of Somerset and the Bishop of Exeter will not be attainable but through the medium of the Church Building Commissioners. It will require some consideration to determine what proposition to lay before them on the subject. It may also turn out that the Duke's apprehension of its being necessary to let the twelvemonth go round is well founded; and this would be so much waste time, for the chapel is ready, I believe. It seems to me also that it might assist the Duke in determining definitively what he might be inclined to do relative to endowment, &c. if an experiment could be first made how the chapel is likely to answer. Under these considerations, I should beg to suggest that it would be better to request of the Bishop, in the first instance, a license as if it were a proprietary chapel only, which need not by any means imply thereby that the idea of endowment and consecration is abandoned. The opening of the chapel in this way will, in the course of a few months, probably, enable the Duke to judge what may be the best arrangement to propose for the ultimate adjustment.—I am, &c.
"JOSEPH MABERLY."
To this letter Mr. Barnes replied—
"Sir—I have taken the earliest opportunity of laying before the Bishop your letter of the 12th. The Bishop directs me to say that the Duke of
334
Somerset, having stated his wish and purpose to endow the chapel, and to convey the same for communication, the Bishop will license the chapel till that purpose can be carried fully into effect. The Bishop has further directed me that, having himself seen the chapel, he dispenses with the issuing of any previous commission of inquiry. It is only necessary, therefore, that the Duke should sign a petition to grant the license, and I will draw a form and send it to you. For this purpose you will be good enough to direct a plan of the chapel to be furnished, showing the ground plan and sealing, &c.; and be good enough to give me the most concise statement possible as to the title—that the Duke is tenant in fee of what other estate.—I am, &c.
"RALPH BARNES."
On receiving this letter, Mr. Maberly wrote, on the 22nd of September, as follows:—
"Sir—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favour, which, with your request of a plan, &c., I will immediately communicate to his Grace, and I doubt not that I shall be commissioned to return his Grace's thanks to the Bishop and your self for your obliging attention. I write, however, in consequence of some expressions in your letter, and to prevent all possibility of any future misunderstanding, unlikely as it may be, to arise. I think that the communication of the Bishop's consent to license is accompanied by words from you, that, if unqualified and unexplained, would amount to an implied engagement on the part of the Duke, at all events, and under any circumstances, and with whatever inconveniences attended, still peremptorily to endow and convey the chapel for consecration. As the Duke is a man who would be scrupulous to the letter in the performance of every iota of what he could be considered, either directly or by implication, to have engaged for, it becomes the more necessary for me to take care that his Grace does not lay himself under any obligation calculated, by any possibility, to bring him into a dilemma. It is his Grace's most serious and determined intention and wish to do his best, through the medium of the Church Commissioners or otherwise to procure the consecration of his chapel, and to make for it a permanent regular endowment of proper amount. With the expression of this intention, the Bishop will, I doubt not, knowing his Grace's attachment to the Establishment, feel satisfied and rest contented. But it is possible that there may be impediments, unlooked-for requisitions, objections made, interference with patronage, or the like, that may make it unadvisable, in the view of his Grace, or of any reasonable man, to proceed to the conveyance or consecration, and may rather induce his Grace to wish to wait till some further legislative regulations afford better facilities, or remove difficulties that may in the present state of the law exist. I must, therefore, claim for his Grace a discretion in these matters beyond what your words convey. That the Bishop is content that the Duke should have this I do not doubt, nor do I think that you meant to imply to the contrary; but if you read again your words, I think that you will find that the qualification is necessary which I have here taken the liberty to make. I will send you the plan, &c., as soon as I receive it, and shall be obliged by the form of petition you propose to send me.—I am, &c. "JOSEPH MABERLY."
Mr. Barnes replied to Mr. Maberly:—
"Exeter, Sept. 25, 1832.
"Sir—I have consulted the Bishop upon your letter of the 22nd. The Bishop's authority, as stated in my letter of the 10th, was founded correctly, his Lordship thinks, on the previous communications; but the Bishop, on perusing your letter, authorizes me to say that he is content to license the building on the declaration therein contained. I shall be glad to give every despatch to the business on your furnishing me with the matter mentioned in my former letter.—I am, &c.
"RALPH BARNES."
The noble Earl concluded by contending that the Duke of Somerset never had entered into any contract to endow the church in question.
The BISHOP of BATH and WELLSsaid, that he had never heard of the difference "which had arisen between the Duke of Somerset and the Bishop of Exeter until he received a letter from the Bishop of Exeter on the subject. As he wished to occupy the attention of their Lordships for the shortest possible time, he should confine what he had to say to the fewest possible words, and therefore he should proceed at once to lay before them the letter which he had received from his right rev. Friend:—
"Bishopstowe, Aug. 1, 1846.
"My dear Lord—Lord Radnor having informed me that it is his intention to bring forward a discussion respecting a statement made by me in the House of Lords on the 23rd of Juno last, on occasion of the presentation of a petition from the Rev. James Shore, which statement his Lordship considers as having cast an imputation of had faith on the Duke of Somerset, I request you to ask for me the indulgence of the House (as was recently accorded to the Archbishop of Dublin) in permitting me, in this letter to your Lordship, to state the reasons which prevent me from attending in my place when the discussion shall come forward. Those reasons are stated in a letter which I wrote on the 28th ult. to Lord Radnor, a copy of which I request you to read to the House, as well as a copy of the letter to Lord Seymour, referred to in mine to Lord Radnor, and of Lord Seymour's answer to me, all which I now enclose. I further request you to state to the House, after reading that answer, that the newspaper transmitted by me was the Western Times, of Saturday, the 25th ult., that it was put into the envelope in my presence by my solicitor, in his own office; that it was sealed by him, and put into the post-office at Exeter by him; that my solicitor took the precaution of marking the copy of the Western Times, so placed by him in the envelope, with my letter addressed to Lord Seymour; and that he and his clerk declare, and he will be ready to testify, that neither of them over had in his possession a Gloucester Journal, nor, to the best of their recollection, ever saw one—that it was, therefore, absolutely impossible that such a paper should have been inserted in the envelope before it was put into the post-office at Exeter. I will add, that I myself have not for many years had in my
336
possession, nor even seen, a Gloucester newspaper; that I could not, therefore, have transmitted such a paper to Lord Seymour.—I am, my dear Lord, yours most faithfully, "H. EXETER.
"The Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.
"P.S. I think it right to add one or two brief passages from the reported speech of Lord Seymour, on which I offered to meet him before a jury:—'He (the Bishop of Exeter) rose calmly and deliberately to make this statement. It is a calm, deliberate, collected statement; and I proceed to show to you that that calm, deliberate, and emphatic statement is a deliberate falsehood.' Again—'Therefore he (the Bishop) not only made a charge diametrically contrary to the truth; but he made a malicious charge, for the purpose of giving a false imputation to the individual in question.'"
That was the letter which he had received. Now, with the permission of the House, he should read the copy of a letter addressed by the Bishop of Exeter to the noble Earl near him who had just addressed the House:—
"Bishopstowe, Torquay, July 28, 1846.
"My Lord—Being in Exeter this day, I have received the letter of yesterday's date with which your Lordship has honoured me, intimating your intention of making a statement in the House of Lords, at the desire of his Grace the Duke of Somerset, in order 'to remove the imputation of bad faith which, in my speech of the 23rd of June, I cast upon him.' I thank your Lordship for saying that 'you should be unwilling that this should be done in my absence,' and expressing your 'hope that I will let you know, at my earliest convenience, what day will suit me to be in the House.' It would have given me very great satisfaction to have availed myself of your Lordship's courteous and candid proposition, had not circumstances occurred which have rendered it imperative on me to forbear at present from personally bearing part in the discussion. Those circumstances are, indeed, such as may possibly induce your Lordship to reconsider your purpose of dealing with the matter at present in the House of Lords. They are as follows: — Lord Seymour, who, as the Duke's eldest son, must be considered by me as having acted in such a matter with the cognizance and approbation of his father, recently called a public meeting, which was holden on Tuesday, the 21st inst., at the Mayoralty Room, Totness (the Mayor presiding), by a handbill, stating that Lord Seymour would address his constituents, and at the same time correct certain statements which had been made respecting the church at Bridgetown. At this meeting the speech of Lord Seymour was of such a character as compelled me to write to him a letter, a copy of which I have the honour to enclose, together with the newspaper, in which the report of it (which is generally, as I hear, understood to be accurate) was given to the world. I have also directed that a bill of indictment be preferred at the Exeter Assizes, now in progress, against the editor of the newspaper, for his peculiar share in the publication. As I shall present myself as a witness in the prosecution of the indictment, in order that I may be submitted to cross-examina-

337
tion upon oath relative to the facts of the case, I feel that I ought not to yield (as my first impression was to yield) to the temptation of bearing part in the discussion which your Lordship has informed me it is your intention to introduce in the House of Lords.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant,
"The Earl of Radnor. "H. EXETER.
"P.S. If your Lordship should continue in the intention of making your statement, I would request that you will give me as early notice of the day as possible, and that it be not earlier than Tuesday next (a day which your letter permits me to name), in order that I may request some friends to attend and report to me the purport of what your Lordship shall say."
He should next proceed to lay before their Lordships a copy of a letter addressed by the Bishop of Exeter to Lord Seymour—
"Bishopstowe, Torquay, July 28, 1846.
"My Lord—My attention has been called to the report of the proceedings of a public meeting holden at Totness on Tuesday last, and especially of a speech therein stated to have been delivered by your Lordship on that occasion. I now send to your Lordship a copy of the newspaper, the Western Times, of Saturday, the 25th inst., in which the report is given. The sentiments and tone ascribed to your Lordship in the reported speech are such as forbid all remark or comment on my part. But I have no hesitation in making to your Lordship a proposition, which I am bound to suppose will not be lightly rejected—that your Lordship shall either deny the general accuracy of the report, or if it be, in the main part of it, accurate, that you make such admission of its accuracy as shall put me in a position to call on you to justify the speech, as reported, and prove the truth of its main allegations before a jury of our country.—I am, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant,
"The Lord Seymour. "H. EXETER.
"P.S. I request your Lordship to return to me the newspaper which I now send, with any statement which your Lordship may think fit."
The answer returned by Lord Seymour he should read, as the last document which he had to lay before them:—
"Spring-gardens, Wednesday, July 29, 1846.
"Lord Seymour declines all communication with the Bishop of Exeter, and is not desirous of reading the Gloucester Journal, which the Bishop has transmitted."
Subject at an end.

JOINT STOCK BANKS BILL.
The EARL of EGLINTONrose to put a question to the noble Marquess opposite, regarding the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Scotland and Ireland Joint Stock Banks Bill. He earnestly hoped that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with such a measure at the present period of the Session. The measure, it was well known, was extremely obnoxious to the people of Scotland. It probably was also known to many
338
noble Lords that a deputation from Scotland waited upon Sir R. Peel for the purpose of inducing him to forego his intentions with respect to this measure. Sir R. Peel promised to reconsider the subject, and promised likewise that some delay should take place; it therefore might be hoped that the present Government would not proceed with the Bill. He hoped that a new Ministry, which, in Scotland at least, had met with no factious opposition, would, as a favour and as an act of grace, postpone such a measure till the next Session of Parliament. There was nothing of which the Scotch were so jealous as any interference with their system of banking. If the Bill passed now, he believed that there was not a bank in Scotland which could avail itself of the advantages which the measure held out. The Bill also appeared to him objectionable on the ground of its tendency to centralization, which, though high in favour with Sir R. Peel, was very differently viewed by the people of Scotland.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas afraid that he could not give the noble Earl any assurance that the Bill would not be proceeded with. He should inform himself as to the progress that the Bill had made elsewhere; but, as far as he could see, there was nothing on the face of the proceedings which seemed to render postponement necessary. The proposed measure, as every one knew, was perfectly familiar to the public, and therefore no well-founded complaint could be urged against its being proceeded with at the present period of the Session. The matter had already been brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, upon the whole, his opinion was that the advantages likely to accrue from the measure would greatly preponderate over the disadvantages.
LORD KINNAIRDobserved, that from the known opposition manifested against the Bill, the parties who objected—indeed all parties—expected that further communication would have been given before the measure had been further proceeded with. He might also say, as another reason why the further progress of the measure should be stayed, that through information afforded by the public papers, persons in Scotland interested in banking affairs had been told that the Bill would be left over until the next Session. He did not see, therefore, that it would be fair to continue further progress, particularly when the very

339
late period of the Session was considered. No doubt the chartered banks of Scotland approved of the Bill, and would be rejoiced, could they see it made the law of the land, because it afforded them a monopoly. He knew the people of Scotland were against this Bill, and he knew also that a general feeling existed in Scotland that farther progress would not be made. On these grounds it would not be fair to enter into any discussion upon the Bill.
EARL GREYthought it would be better to postpone the discussion of the Bill till the second reading; and if the Bill was proceeded with, it should pass with as little delay as possible. He proposed, therefore, to make it an Order of the Day that the Bill should be read a second and third time on Thursday, when he thought he should be able to state reasons for passing the Bill of which his noble Friend was not aware.
Bill read 1a.
House adjourned.