Mr. Goulburnwished to have some reason given by the noble Lord, why he persevered in the nomination of the Church-leases Committee when he had postponed the other public business. Such a course was at variance with the arrangements the noble Lord had made.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, all he had done was to have the order of the day read for the appointment of the Committee; and all he had to state was, that the House had ordered a Committee to be appointed. This resolution was carried in a very full House by a majority of eighty-three, and he would have proceeded immediately on the next day to have named the Committee if he had not been desirous to have some time, in order to consult hon. Gentlemen whether they would consent to become Members of the Committee. He did try several, among whom were the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and the hon. 1622 Member for Oxford University, all of whom had declined to have their names attached to that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge seemed, from what he had just stated, to wish to know why, as the general business of the House was to be postponed, it was advisable they should proceed with the appointment of the Church leases Committee. His answer to that inquiry was, that he thought it would tend, on the whole, to save time with respect to any measure they might hereafter adopt. He could not anticipate, after the vote of so large a majority of that House, and the attention which had been directed to this subject by the public, that some measure would not be ultimately adopted. It did appear to him necessary there should be a Committee appointed at once, so that they might have a course of examination on the subject rather than delay it till the commencement of the new Parliament, because they might then have to wait two or three months for returns, which, if the Committee were appointed, could be ordered at once, and therefore would be ready next Session. He did not wish to have the Committee appointed for the purpose of entering into controverted points, but for that of getting information, and in proposing the Committee, he begged leave to move that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer be a Member of it.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the surprise with which he had first learned the noble Lord's intention of moving the nomination of this Committee had not been lessened by the observations which the noble Lord had just made. The noble Lord said, he pursued this course, not with a view of adopting any proceedings in this, but in the next Parliament. Now, in the first place, hon. Members who were nominated on this Committee, might not be Members of that House in the next Session of Parliament; and secondly, any decision that this Committee might come to could be overturned by the Committee of next Session, should the House consent then to its revival. Moreover, any orders that the present Committee might issue would be powerless as soon as the present Parliament terminated, and the parties on whom such orders might be served would not be liable to the least censure if they forbore giving the requisite information. Therefore, so far as regarded the acquiring of information for a Committee that might sit hereafter, the proceeding of the noble 1623 Lord would prove altogether abortive. He could not suppose it to be the object of the noble Lord to bring before the Committee specific evidence which might be already prepared, with a view of letting it go forth to the country; because, if he understood the object of the Committee, it was, that there should be a fair inquiry into facts essential to be known in order to form a proper judgment upon the scheme proposed by Government. But if this Committee were to be now appointed for the purpose of receiving evidence already prepared, of giving ex parte statements to the public with the view of making an impression during the interval that would take place between the present and the new Parliament—if, he said, that were the principle on which it was proposed that the Committee should now meet, he was certain it was one—whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the appointment of that Committee—which no fair or candid man was prepared to sanction. It would be only laying before the public a one-sided view of the question, which he was sure was not intended should be done by the majority of those who voted for the Committee. He must, therefore, solemnly protest against a course which was quite unnecessary for the purposes of any future inquiry, and which could have but one object, that of producing a partial investigation in order to create an impression which ought not to be created upon any subject, and least of all upon one which affected so large a mass of private property as this. He had no objection to the names, but he could not forbear entering his protest against a proceeding of so partial a nature, and so contrary to the principle laid down on a recent occasion by the noble Lord.
§ The Committee was nominated.