THE HORFIELD CONTROVERSY.
THE position which the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol takes is one that must derive its principal force from the future rather than the present. Substantially, his reply to Mr. Horsman, in a letter published in the Times of Tuesday, is, that although he perseveres in retaining the estate of Horfield, he does so from the best of mo- tives and for excellent purposes. The motives may be presumed ; the purposes must be judged when they are carried. out. As a mere answer to Mr. Horsman's charge, the Bishop's letter has little force. In attempting to prove that Mr. Horsman was guilty of " fiction," Dr. Monk shows that the fiction had at least much verisimilitude ; and although nobody will retort the Bishop's epithet, it might be said that his letter is less a statement of the facts than "founded on fact." Challenged by Sir George Grey to the specific mention of an existing abuse in the Church, Mr. Hors- man cited the case of Horfield, an estate for the surrender of which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in treaty with the late Bish- op, Dr. Allan : the present Bishop, Mr. Horsman said, had received his episcopal endowment on the understanding that he should not renew the lease, but on the expiry of the lease he refused to fulfil the understanding, and he leased the estate on the lives of three of his own children. Dr. Monk replies, that there was no understand- ing; that Dr. Allan had only joined in the correspondence because he was offended at not having been consulted, and thought if the funds were to be used it. should be in the erection of a palace for the Bishop ; that Lord Melbourne expressly said the new Bishop might lease the estate anew, if he pleased; that Mr. Murray, the late Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commission, on whose evidence the case partly rests, is " a most unworthy sub ject "; and that the estate has been leased with a view to public improvement.
"Being contiguous to the city of Bristol, it presented a favourable site for the erection of villas ; but the nature of the tenure of copyhold land, held under a lord farmer, was a constant obstacle to building, as well as other improvements.. . . .
"I was wishing for a considerable time to carry out an object of diocesan improvement which I had much at heart ; and it struck me that an oppor- tunity was offered for combining three objects,—the improvement of Hor- field, the benefit to the funds of the Commission, and the erection of par- sonages in small livings "I had, then, three great objects in view, which were anything but self- ish in their nature. I wished to commute the manorial rights for land, to set an example to the parish of effectual draining and other agricultural im- provements, and to provide for the future augmentation of the living by giving to it prospectively the tithe rent-charge. All these objects could be accomplished by a lease, of which I myself might retain the control ; and, as I understood and still understand this matter, they could have been at- tained in no other way than by a lease ; the two first requiring a large ex- penditure of money, and the time when the third might take effect being uncertain. I did therefore grant a lease for three lives (though not of my own children) to my secretary."
Now Dr. Monk appears greatly to underrate the public-spirit of Dr. Allan. That prelate had expressed a desire—not unnatural as Bishops go—for a palace ; but he has recorded his decided opinion, "that neither of these leases should be renewed for lives, and that upon their expiration, the fines, for the full term of twenty-one years, should be at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for general purposes." Lord Melbourne's opinion has been con- firmed by the event : Dr. Monk did please to renew the lease, and he has done it.
That he did so from the best of motives, we are inclined to as- sume, on his own authority; and we presume also, that he will fulfil those motives in the manner indicated by his letter to the Times. The improvements would probably be considerable. The contiguity to Bristol, and his hint about villa residences, suggest a doubt whether the improvement is likely to add so much to the agriculture of the country as it will to Bristol and the value of the episcopal property in that quarter. The allusions raise a doubt whether Horfield may not prove to Bristol and the see thereof what Paddington has been to London and the see thereof. The improvement of the episcopal property at Paddington has been enormous; but the extension of great towns is not usually reckon- ed among the plans for the improvement of agriculture ; and even if it were, unless the Bishop has not retained the estate in his own hands, by making merely a colourable surrender of it to his secre- tary, his plans must be as liable to subversion by that gentleman as the plans of the Commissioners were by himself. If he has re- tained the control, will he retain the profit? And yet again, even if the Bishop has effectually retained the control of future plans, we must have a still greater doubt whether a person charged with the laborious spiritual duties that must weigh heavily on every conscientious bishop can be the best person to conduct enterprises for the improvement of agriculture.
Previous page
