Mr. ROWLATT has published a second edition of his r ampblet,
with a postscript. Ile has put the conduct of Sit' RomArr PEEL in a new light. It appears that, with all his zeal for securing the fittest man for the living of St. Bride's, for which he has been so much pulled and praised, Sir ROBERT in the first place offered it to a private friend.
" The first thing he thought of doing with the living was to offer it to a private, friend of his men (a very proper person for it in all respects, I admit); and it was only mete, Ids refusing it, that he placed it in the hands of the Bishop of London,—tin- the purpose, as I verily believe, in coin MOD with many others, of obtaining papule, ity at that particular conjuncture for them both, however disguised that minis.: eight be even to themselves."
Lord LYNDHURST knew perfectly well what were Mr. Row- LATT'S elaitus on the living ; and lie promised Sir FuEnEtucK PoeLocx, that if he had the right to the presentation, RowLsyr should have it. That he had the right, Lord ELDON had de- cided; and, since, the Commissioners of the Great Seal have de- clared, in a return made to Parliament, that " they have the right of presenting to all livings (by lapse or otherwise) in the gift of the Crown, of the yearlv value of 201. or under in the King's books;" of which St. Bible's is one. Yet LeNnnUesr never mentioned RowLATT's name to PEEL, but let the living be given to another. The share of the Bishop of LONDON in this affair has been already thoroughly exposed ; and we are justified in again quoting the words of the Times correspondent,—" by a general hustle of the three, PEEL, LYNDHURST, and BLOMFIELD, ROWLATT was robbed I"
Previous page
