FROME VICARAGE. (Hansard, 10 June 1852)

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, he would now beg to nominate the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage. ["Oh, oh!"] He hoped the House would allow the Motion to proceed, as, unless the Committee were nominated to-night, it would probably be delayed till Monday, and it was most desirable to avoid anything that might give rise to an impression out of doors that the House wished to shirk the inquiry. He had endeavoured to make the Committee as fair a representation of both sides of the question as possible. He was sorry to find, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood), the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Loftus Wigram), and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Paeke), declined to act; but he was quite ready to substitute such other names in lieu as might be suggested. The names proposed by the hon. Member were—Mr. Horsman, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Sir David Dundas, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Strutt, Sir William Page Wood, Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Loftus Wigram, Mr. Evans, Mr. Packe, Mr. Langston, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Shafto Adair.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that without intending to thwart the decision at which the House had arrived on this question, he could not, on the part of the Government, assent to a Committee the composition of which was unknown to the House. Not only had the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood), and the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Loftus Wigram) voted in the minority, but the other hon. Member (Mr. Packe) had done so; and for these Gentlemen the hon. Gentleman bad named no substitutes. Now, he 465 did not wish to make any stronger observations than the case deserved; and, therefore, he would confine himself to saying that when the Government saw two such men as the hon. Members for the City of Oxford and the University of Cambridge excluded from the Committee, they could not consent to the Motion, unless two names equal in weight were substituted. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that the Government should use their influence to induce those hon. Gentlemen to serve on the Committee. He begged to say, he had done so, and he had failed. In conclusion, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion for the appointment of a Committee that night.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
said, that his name appeared on the list of the Committee, but nothing, save the express order of that House, would, induce him to serve on it, and for this reason, that that House had not been led to act on a constitutional principle. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hors-man) had brought certain charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells—a high officer of the State, and acting judicially— for a breach of the law and corruption in the exercise of his office. If those charges were proved, they carried with them an impeachment. And with regard to the impeachment and matters of a minor character, it was the uniform and recognised practice that when that House proceeded to entertain such charges, they should be brought forward in a definite and tangible form. It was the uniform practice that the man who was charged in that House by a Member of the House, in reference to the exercise of his judicial office, founded on perverse motives or deliberate purpose, should know whether he was or was not acquitted of the charge brought against him. No such security was afforded by the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Before he could vote for the proposition he required a security that they should know whether the Bishop of Bath and Wells did that of which he stood charged. Under any circumstances he must have served on the Committee with the greatest pain and reluctance; but he totally protested, unless on the order of the House, to proceed with the grave charges made against a great officer of the State acting judicially, unless those charges were defined. And therefore, acting on precedents and on the principles of uniform practice, it was his intention, at the proper time, to move that the 466 hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Hors-man) should reduce into heads, or articles, the charges made against Richard, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and that he should present the same to the House. It was his object to defend the Bishop of Bath and Wells from the charges made against him, and therefore he would, in the event of his Motion being carried, move that the heads of the charges should be laid on the table of the House, and then be referred to the Committee, who should be instructed to report their opinion to the House. This would, in effect, in no way limit the views of the Committee on any subject now included in the charges, but it would ensure their examination into those charges in a judicial form, and would guarantee to the Bishop of Bath and Wells the privilege which every British subject enjoyed—that of knowing whether the charges inside against him had been proved or disproved.

MR. E. ELLICE
would suggest, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), his hon. Friend should not proceed with the nomination of the Committee, the composition of which was unknown to the Government. His solo object in supporting his hon. Friend's Motion was to remedy a great grievance, but not to found an impeachment against the Bishop of Bath and Wells.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he thought his hon. Friend had forgotten the circumstances of the Vote of the other night. There was a distinct proposal to examine into the state of the law, which the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsrman) refused, and which at his instance the House negatived, and the hon. Gentleman stated that there were charges brought against an individual which that proposal was meant to get rid of. He (Mr. S. Herbert) said, in common justice to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had been charged with malversation—in common justice to the culprit—let them have the charges stated in writing, that they might know what they were, and whether he was guilty or not.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he did not wish to shuffle out of the charges that had been made. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had made certain charges, which he believed to be correct, and it was only fair he should be allowed an opportunity to prove them. In justice, therefore, to all the parties concerned, it was right 467 that a Committee of men of the highest character and standing in that House should report upon the charges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had called the inquiry an impeachment of one of the highest dignitaries in the Church. If this were really the case, it would be better that the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth should, in the course of to-morrow, see the Government, and endeavour to get such a Committee appointed as would give satisfaction to the country. He believed that suggestion, if carried out, would be more satisfactory to all parties concerned.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, in explanation, that he had not intended to charge the hon. Member for Cockermouth with a desire to shuffle out of the charges; what he had intended to convey was, that the House ought not to put itself in a false position with reference to the matter.

§ SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOOD
said, that he had not been applied to serve on the Committee, and was not aware that his name had been put on the list; but when he heard that he had been named he declined to serve.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the Government did not at all complain that the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had not sufficiently consulted them on the subject. His own opinion was, that the resolution to which the House had come, was an unfortunate one; but, having adopted it, the Government desired that the inquiry should be full and impartial. What, under the circumstances, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Cockermouth was, that he should ask the permission of the House so to alter the terms of his Motion, as that inquiry should be made into the grievances of the existing law, and not into the conduct of an individual, whom all now seemed to be anxious to hold free from attack. By adopting this suggestion, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the House would disengage itself from a very embarrassing situation, and place itself on a better footing with respect to the inquiry.

§ MR. HORSMAN
thought it would be more desirable they should come to some understanding as to the nomination of this Committee before the House adjourned.