§ MR. HORSMANappealed to the indulgence of the House while he explained the grounds on which he asked again for an opportunity to bring forward the question which had been for some weeks under the consideration of the Government. More than a month ago a Motion was made by him (Mr. Horsman) for the institution of an inquiry into certain circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome. That Motion was negatived by the House, on the Government's undertaking that they would themselves institute an inquiry—not a friendly nor a judicial one, as had been suggested, but a bonâ fide inquiry into the circumstances to which he had directed their attention. After the lapse of a week from the making of that promise, his gallant Friend the hon. Member for Frome (Colonel Boyle) asked how the inquiry was proceeding; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that it was only that day that he had received the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, and that he must have time to consider that opinion; and being pressed 740 by another question from him (Mr. Horsman), the right hon. Gentleman observed that the inquiry was being proceeded with, and that, while it was pending, all these interrogatories must prove exceedingly inconvenient. On more than one occasion during the succeeding fortnight, the right hon. Gentleman repeated the same statement—assuring the House that a bond fide inquiry was in progress, and that any interrogatories, pending that inquiry, had better be suspended. One month had now elapsed since the question was first mooted in that House, and three weeks since the Government had themselves admitted that they were in possession of the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. Last Tuesday three weeks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was then in possession of those opinions, and requested time to consider their decision. Notwithstanding that the Session was drawing to a close, he, in consideration of the difficulties in which the Government would be placed if embarrassed by repeated questionings on the subject, had purposely refrained from bringing the question forward in such a shape as he otherwise should have felt it his duty to do. The reason why he had abstained from pressing the matter was, that he was unwilling to appear to embarrass the Government, and relied on the good faith in which they had pledged themselves to that House. But the Session was now drawing to a close, and he could not but feel that if the Government did not give him some facility he should find considerable difficulty in obtaining an expression of the House's opinion on this important subject. Regard being had to all the circumstances of the case, and remembering that all the delay that had taken place had been occasioned by his refraining from embarrassing the Government, he certainly did think that he had a strong claim on their favourable consideration. He was sure that the House would concur with him in the opinion that a discussion on this question had been, he would not say averted, but certainly hitherto prevented or postponed by the Government having themselves undertaken to institute the desired inquiry. From the statement that had been made in that House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday evening, it was manifest that the Government were not able to do that to which they had pledged themselves; and this being the case, he appealed to their sense of justice to place 741 him, and, indeed, he would say to place the House, in that position which they would have occupied had reliance not been placed on the promises of the Government. He begged leave to give notice that tomorrow he should ask the Government whether they would allow the House a day for reconsidering the question, and thus enable it to resume that position which it would not have given up if the Government had not undertaken what they had found themselves unable to perform. Before he resumed his seat, he begged to ask a question of the Attorney General. It would be in the recollection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the law officers of the Crown had had the whole of this case submitted to their consideration—the complaint made being in effect this—that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, he having been previously warned by the Bishop of London and others of Mr. Bennett's unfitness, and of the reasons why Mr. Bennett had left the diocese of London; and the right hon. Gentleman was also then supposed to state that if there were a presumption that a person in communion with the Roman Catholic Church had been instituted into a Protestant living, the evil would be so great that, notwithstanding the advanced period of the Session, the Government would have felt it their duty to bring the question under the consideration of the House; but that such a proceeding was unnecessary as the law officers of the Crown to whom the whole case had been referred, had advised the Government that, under the Church Discipline Act, there was at present legal redress for any such grievance. With reference, then, to this supposed statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he begged to ask this question—Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whose absence he addressed himself to the Attorney General, correctly understood to say that the law advisers of the Crown had given it as their opinion to the Government that, for the complaint which was made—that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted an unfit person to the vicarage of Frome—there was, in the circumstances alleged, any redress under the Church Discipline Act?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsubmitted to the hon. Gentleman that that was a very hasty way of putting to him a question of that kind. The hon. 742 Gentleman had not given notice of his intention to put the question, and therefore he must decline to answer it at present.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he would put the question to-morrow.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that with reference to the observations which had been made by the hon. Gentleman, without any previous notice of his intention to bring the subject forward on that occasion, he thought it extremely inconvenient, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that any expression of opinion on the part of the Government should be made. So far as he was concerned, all he could say was this— in the course of yesterday afternoon he had a long conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject; and so far from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or himself wishing to prevent the hon. Member bringing the matter before the House, they considered whether they could not give him an early day for renewing the subject in that House, so as to place him in the same position in which he originally stood. The state of public business was, however, such—so many Bills pressing for consideration, and the Government under so many engagements to give up their days to private Members, they did not see well how they could give the hon. Member for Cockermouth an early day for his Motion. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be present to-morrow to answer the question which the hon. Gentleman intended to put.