§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had 613 a Motion for appointing the Select Committee on the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennett:—"To nominate the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage:—Mr. Horsman, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Sir David Dundas, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Evans, Mr. Stuart Wortley. Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Langston, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Shafto Adair, Mr. Gaskell, Sir Harry Verney, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Edward Ellice, and Mr. dimming Bruce." He wished to ask the hon. Member whether he intended to proceed with that Motion to-night; and whether he proposed that the Committee should consist of eighteen Gentlemen instead of fifteen, the usual number? He also begged to ask him whether he meant to accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) who had given two notices on the subject:—
After the nomination of the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage, to move that the hon. Member for Cockermouth do reduce into Heads or Articles the several Charges which he has made in his place against Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, and do present the said Heads or Articles to this House."—"Alter Mr. Horsman shall have presented the Heads or Articles of his Charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, to move, that the said Heads or Articles of Charge lie referred to the Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome, and that it he an instruction to the said Committee to report their opinion thereupon to the House.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that it was his intention to proceed with the nomination that evening. He did not propose that the Committee should consist of eighteen Members. He had given in a list of fifteen names to the clerk at the table, and the three extra names had been inserted by a mistake of the printer; the Committee, therefore, would not consist of more than the usual number. He had been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was rather in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to nominate the Committee after the Committee of Supply, in order to avoid the doubt that might arise if it were put off to a very late hour of the night. It was quite obvious that there was the best chance of its being appointed if they got to it at an early hour. With respect to the last question, it was a matter for the House to decide rather than him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the 614 University of Oxford had given notice that, after the nomination of the Committee, he would "move that the hon. Member for Cockermouth be directed to reduce to heads or articles the several charges he had brought against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to present them to that House;" and the right hon. Gentleman stated, when he gave his notice, that he was prepared to show to the House that what be proposed was strictly in conformity with precedent. He would only reply that if the right hon. Gentleman did show that, and if it was the pleasure of the House that he should submit the heads of charges, as proposed, he should willingly bow to the wishes, or rather the commands, of the House, and do whatever lay in his power to conduct the inquiry in the manner that would be most satisfactory both to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as the hon. Member had referred to the conversation he had had with him, he wished to state that, it was certainly his desire to facilitate the appointment of a Committee; and if he could be sure that no discussion would take place, he would willingly waive the privilege of the Government with respect to the order of business. But be was not satisfied, from the inquiries he had made, that there would be no discussion, and therefore he felt it his first duty, as there was a great deal of business that must be attended to, to watch over the progress of the Government Bills, many of which were of the greatest importance. He would, however, endeavour to assist in obtaining an opportunity for the nomination of the hon. Gentleman's Committee in the course of the evening, if possible, but be could not at present pledge himself to afford that opportunity after the Committee of Supply.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, having been referred to, he wished to observe that, as the hon. Member (Mr. Horsman) had not seen cause at once to express his assent to the Motion of which he had given notice, and as it was a point of the highest constitutional importance, it would be necessary for him to detain the House at considerable length in making that Motion. He was perfectly prepared to perform his part, at whatever hour it might be; but he thought it only fair to give this notice that hon. Gentlemen might take their measures accordingly.
§ MR. HORSMANunderstood that the 615 fifteen hon. Gentlemen whose names were put down were willing to serve.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had stated distinctly the other night that nothing would induce him to serve on the Committee unless the hon. Gentleman observed the course of laying before it the written charges which he had made.
The SOLICITOR GENERALcomplained that his name had been placed upon the Committee without his sanction.
§ MR. HORSMANcould only say that he had shown the list of names to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had struck out one name, and had, instead, put in that of the Solicitor General. Under those circumstances, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be of opinion that there had been no want of courtesy on his part.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it right to state, in justification of the Solicitor General, that he had had no communication with the hon. and learned Gentleman since he had suggested that his name should be placed upon the Committee. What he had said to the hon. Member for Cockermouth was this:—"If all the other Gentlemen mentioned by you have consented to serve, I have no doubt you may put the Solicitor's General's name down." He had, however, certainly understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had specifically promised to serve.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL,of course, must exonerate the hon. Member for Cockermouth from having made unwarranted use of his name. When, however, the time arrived for the appointment of the Committee, there were two questions of which he should give full notice to the hon. Member before he (the Solicitor General) could consent to serve.