Commons Sitting of 7 July 1845

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For Cambridge Borough, v. Fitz Roy Kelly, Esq., Solicitor General.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. George Moffatt, Esq., for Dartmouth.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Geological Survey; Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society; Land Revenue Act Amendment; Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland); Bankrupts' Declaration.
2o. Schoolmasters (Scotland).
Reported.—Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Constables, Public Works (Ireland).
Private—1o. Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road.
2o. Yoker Road (No. 2); Morden College; Earl of Onslow's (Ellerker's) Estate; Lord Monson's Estate.
Reported.—Lady Sandy's (or Turner's) Estate; South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells); South Eastern Railway (Widening and Extension of the London and Greenwich Railway); London and Croydon Railway
74
Enlargement; London and Croydon (Chatham to Chilham); London and Croydon Railway (Orpington Branch); Loudon, Chatham, and North Kent Railway.
3o. and passed:—Bristol Parochial Rates (No. 2); St. Helen's Railway and Canal; Aberdare Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir J. Y. Buller, from C. Edwards, of Totnes, and several other Gentlemen, apologizing for Breach of Privilege.—By Mr. Botfield, from Apparitors of Hereford, for Compensation (Ecclesiastical Courts Bill).—By Mr. Oswald, and Lord John Russell, from Liverpool and Clarence, New South Wales, for Repeal of certain Acts relating to that Colony—By Viscount Howick, from Settlers in Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand, for a Local Representative Government there.—By Mr. Smollett, from Kirkintilloch, against Arrestment of Wages (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. G. Hamilton, from Drogheda, for Repeal of Act relating to Carts, &c., (Dublin).—By the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. A-Chapman, and several other hon. Gentlemen, from a great number of places, against the Charitable Trusts Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Henry Dowell Griffiths, against Commons' Inclosure Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
Sir R. Peelsaid: Sir, perhaps it may be the most convenient course if, in moving the Order of the Day, I fulfil the promise which I have made, to state with respect to those legislative measures which are of the greatest importance the course which Her Majesty's Government proposes to pursue, seeing the very advanced period of the Session, and the great mass of public business yet to be discharged. Before I allude to the Bills under the consideration of the House, or likely to come from the House of Lords, I will answer a question put to me a few days since in respect to those measures connected with railway legislation which have immediate relation to the Board of Trade. It will be recollected, the Government promised that, availing ourselves of the experience of Committees on Railways in the course of the Session, we would maturely consider the relation in which that department stands to railways, and that if we had any modifications to suggest either in the constitution of the Board, or in the nature of the functions it has to perform, we would indicate them at a sufficiently early period to enable the House to adopt any proceedings that might be thought necessary. In the course of the present week, therefore, either I or my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade, will lay on the Table of the House a Minute of the Board of Trade, stating the alterations that we think desirable to have made in the functions that were last year suggested it should undertake with respect to Railway Bills. I believe the general purport of the Minute will be to continue the Board as the guardian of the public interests, giving it a power to report whether any particular

75
project does affect these peculiar interests or not; but at the same time to relieve it from the task of deciding on the relative merits of competing lines. It is proposed that the several projects shall still be laid before the Board of Trade, and that Reports shall be continued to be laid before Parliament by the Board with respect to the merits of those projects as far as they affect the public interests, but without reference to the merits of the different competing plans. That, I believe, is the nature of the regulation suggested; and it is intended that a Minute of it shall be laid on the Table of the House in the course of this week. As I am speaking on the subject of railway legislation, I may as well refer to the Address to the Crown which has been agreed to on the Motion of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), praying for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the relative merits of the broad and narrow gauge. I wish to inform the House that three Commissioners have been appointed to report whether the broad or the narrow gauge has the higher merit; and they are gentlemen whose character will, I think, satisfy the House that the matter will be fully considered. They are—Sir Frederick Smith, Professor Barlow, and Professor Airey. I believe it would be hard to suggest the names of any three gentlemen which would be received with greater respect, or whose professional acquirements are calculated to give greater satisfaction. Having said this much, I will now proceed to state the course which we propose to pursue, subject to the approbation of the House, with regard to the measures now under the consideration of this House, or which will be submitted to its consideration in consequence of proceedings in another branch of the Legislature. I regret to find, on a view of these measures, several of those which yet remain to be discharged, and that must or ought to be discharged, are very important. Still, though the quantity of business to be got through is very great, I think it will be of advantage if I make a positive announcement on the part of the Government of the course which we intend to pursue respecting the measures which we feel it to be our duty to press on the consideration of the House. The entire number of Bills amounts I believe, to not less than between fifty and sixty. Of these a great number, though important to the public interests, are not, I believe, of so pressing a nature that their
76
postponement will lead to any great public inconvenience. It is hardly necessary that I should go into details respecting the whole of these Bills; and I will, therefore, confine myself to those which are of public importance, or likely to lead to much discussion. In the first instance, we propose to proceed with the Irish Colleges Bill. That Bill has yet to undergo consideration in the House of Lords, and it is of great importance that it should be sent to that House at as early a period as possible. We propose, therefore, as far as possible, to give precedence to that Bill, and to conclude the discussion upon it before we take up any other measure. In consequence of the discussions which have already taken place on this Bill, it will not be necessary, most probably, to delay the progress of the Bill in its later stages as long as would otherwise be necessary. It stands first after the Privilege Question on this evening; and after it passes through Committee, which I hope will be on this evening, the House will then have to deal with the Motion for which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Captain Bernal) has an Amendment to the Report being received. The hon. Member was induced to postpone that Motion at the instance of my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham); and if the hon. Member still determines on proceeding with it on the bringing up of the Report, I shall feel it my duty, after his compliance with the request of my right hon. Friend, to give him an opportunity of doing so either then, or on the third reading of the Bill. It is for him and the House to decide, and I shall certainly feel myself called upon to accede to whatever course he wishes to adopt. If the hon. Member wishes to bring on his Motion at the first stage, I should wish to fix the bringing up of the Report for Thursday next, and the third reading for the following day. If the hon. Gentleman, however, consents to make his Motion on the third reading of the Bill, the House will probably consent to receive the Report either to-morrow or the next day, and take the third reading on Thursday. Another Bill, which I believe to be of the greatest importance, and the general principle of which has been favourably received by the House, is one relating to Scotland, and in which I do not anticipate any very protracted discussion, or any very great difficulty in passing it through the House—I mean the Poor-law Amendment Scotland Bill. Another Bill which I

77
would wish to proceed with, and which I have been reluctantly obliged to postpone for a long time, in consequence of the discussions which have taken place on the subject of the Maynooth Bill and the Irish Colleges Bill, is the Bill for removing certain disabilities under which the Jews suffer. I would wish to fix the second reading of that Bill at an early period. There are many other Bills which must be brought under discussion, in consequence of being continuing Bills. It may be said that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to bring these Bills on before; but we found that to be impossible, in consequence of the time taken up with other matters. I do not complain of the discussions that have taken place on various questions; but I only refer to them as a proof that we had no opportunity of bringing forward much public business at an earlier period. Among the Bills to which I allude, and which must be continued, is the Bills of Exchange Bill, which continues the modifications of the usury laws. There are also other Bills, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has charge of, and which are continuous Bills. For instance, there is a Bill to continue the Act which will expire at the end of the present year, relating to the rating of stock. There is also the Turnpike Trusts Bill, and the Bill for providing for the removal of Irish and Scotch poor. This Bill will be the more necessary if ray right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) does, as he proposes, with regard to another measure, namely, relinquish for the present Session the hope of passing the Parochial Settlement Bill into a law. In addition to the Bills which I have mentioned, there are several Bills connected with Ireland, with respect to which I believe no very material differences are likely to arise. These are the Valuation Bill, the Criminal Lunatics Bill, the Bill which is called the Constables Public Works Bill, the Drainage of Land Bill, and the Joint Stock Company's Bill, which is intended to extend to Ireland the same regulations which were applied to England by the Bill of last Session. There is also, I think, a Fisheries Bill, which is likewise intended to be forwarded. In addition to this mass of business to be got through in the course of the present Session, there still remain not less than eighty Votes of Supply. There are also four Notices of Motion given by hon. Members for the first occasion of the House going into Supply. I trust, there-
78
fore, that on account of the advanced period of the Session, and the mass of business necessary to be gone through, that hon. Gentlemen will be induced to wave their Motions, and thus to give us facilities for getting through with the Votes of Supply. This will be the more necessary, as some days will elapse, after disposing of the Irish Colleges Bill, before the House can go into Committee of Supply. This day week will, I apprehend, be the very earliest day on which we can expect to get into Committee of Supply. Under these circumstances, we have thought it best to make up our minds to relinquish the following Bills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department wishes to have an opportunity of reprinting the Bill for regulating the practice of Physic and Surgery. My right hon. Friend had flattered himself that this Bill was so far advanced that an agreement would take place between the parties interested, and that possibly a general assent would be given to the measure. If he be justified in taking this view of the question, and if, after the Bill is reprinted, it is likely to be agreed to, and that there is a probability of the House being relieved from the question next Session, then he trusts to be able to pass it; but if any very decided opposition be apparent, after it is reprinted, rather than consume the time of the House in discussions, my right hon. Friend, after reprinting the Bill with the modifications, which I believe are not great, will not press it against the decided sense of any considerable number of the Members of the House. He means also to relinquish the Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace Bill; and, as I said before, the Parochial Settlement Bill. I omitted to state that there is expected from the Lords some Bill of considerable importance—one relative to the Slave Trade, which is now under consideration in that House, and has passed the second reading. Another measure, brought forward by the Board of Trade, or the Board of Admiralty, will also be persevered in. I allude to the Merchant Seamen's Bill, which I think we may fairly hope to to pass into a law. There is another Bill, called the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill, which we propose to postpone. If it meet with the general concurrence of the House, we shall take the course that I have now mentioned. There are several other Bills for which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible; but I confine myself to the chief. I need not advert to those in charge of

79
private Members. I have here a list of, I believe, seventeen, which are under the charge of individual Members of Parliament, such as the Coal Trade Bill, and others; and these I cannot be expected to give any opinion upon. With respect to the Charitable Trusts Bill, I believe it to be a Bill of very great importance. Her Majesty's Government, after full consideration, approved of the principle of that Bill; but still I am justified in stating that it has been brought under the consideration of Parliament at so late a period of the Session, that I scarcely think it can be persevered in with any probability of success in this Session. From the great number of persons interested in it, I think it would be sure to lead to a protracted discussion, and I think it will cause a good deal of local excitement and fruitless consumption of time if it be not dropped. With that Bill we do not therefore propose to persevere; and I will add, that the parties interested in it are entitled to a better opportunity of having their interests attended to than they could be at this period of the Session. I am not aware that there are any other measures which it is necessary for me to refer to. [An hon. Member: The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.] That is a Bill of which the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) has charge. As that Bill is founded on similar principles as the Bill which Her Majesty's Government brought in on a former occasion, I must say that I shall feel bound to vote for the second reading; but at the same time I cannot, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, pledge myself to any support of the details of the measure. If the noble Lord wishes to have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill, I certainly shall give my consent to the second reading; but at the same time I cannot promise any farther assistance in carrying it through the House farther than to affirm the principle of the Bill. If the noble Lord wishes me to enter into any other arrangement, on the part of Her Majesty's Government I must beg to decline. [Captain Berkeley: What of the Small Debts Bill?] I rather think that this is one of the Bills which we propose to proceed with. There are also Bills relating to the Geological Society, to the consolidation of land revenue, and other Bills which we will go on with. [Mr. Collett: The Commons' Enclosure Bill?] I will propose to assign a morning sitting to this Bill; and I do hope, after the
80
general impression which exists of the Bill being favourable to the interests of the working classes of society, that it will be allowed to pass. There is another measure that I am anxious to have the concurrence of the House in favour of. We have recently made very important alterations in the Customs Acts, and I think that thirteen years have now elapsed since the consolidation of the Customs Laws. The consolidation of these laws has been found a great convenience to the merchants; and we are prepared to bring in a Bill on this subject, which I hope will be allowed to pass without difficulty. The Act will be found to be a great convenience to the mercantile body; and I hope it will be carried without any attempt to pass abstract Amendments, which would have the effect of substantially postponing the measure for another Session. If it meets with the unanimous concurrence of the House, I would wish to pass a Bill just to consolidate the law, and to do so in as brief a form as possible, and if even verbal changes were to be introduced, full notice should be given of it. [Mr. M. Bellew: The Lunacy Bills?] The Lunacy Bill stands on the Motion of my noble Friend for Thursday. [Mr. Shaw: What of the Irish Landlords and Tenants Bill?] That has not come down yet from the other House.
Lord John Russell: The Bill alluded to by the right hon. Baronet—the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill—is one of which I took charge, on finding that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir George Grey), who was far better qualified to conduct it through the House than I am, was not able to do so. I thought the right hon. Baronet would have been enabled to say, with respect to that Bill, that there was a sufficient number of Government days on which it might go through the House, either for its acceptance or its rejection. If he had done so, I should be prepared to go on with it; but I do not conceive that any purpose would be answered by proceeding to the second reading of a Bill nearly similar to that which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government in 1843, and the second reading of which was affirmed. I should hope, however, that in the course of the next Session Her Majesty's Government will undertake to bring forward such a Bill; and certainly if they do not, either I or my right hon. Friend will undertake it, and in that case I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give it that support which I gave

81
his Bill for regulating controverted elections. I am not prepared, under these circumstances, to carry the Bill farther on the present occasion. The right hon. Baronet appeared rather to think that those Members who have Amendments to propose, on the House going into Committee of Supply, would be willing to forego their right. I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to hold out any hope to the right hon. Baronet of his desires in this respect being likely to meet with much support; and I have farther to inform him that another question will probably be added to them, provided no other opportunity presents itself for bringing it forward. The question is one that naturally arises in consequence of the recent proceedings that have taken place with regard to the correspondence that has been published on the subject of Spanish colonial sugar between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain. My noble Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) intends to draw the attention of the House to this subject; and he will, I am sure, be willing to fix it in any manner that will best suit the convenience of the House both as to time and to the exact form in which he would make it. The subject is one which now occupies much public attention; and, as the correspondence has only recently been printed, the Motion is one that could not have been brought forward earlier. With regard to the selection of Bills that the right hon. Gentleman has made, I have only to state that I am glad to find that certain Bills have been given up; and for my part, so far from exhibiting the spirit that is usually shown towards the Government on such occasions, and of considering them much to blame because Bills introduced in February should be dropped in July, I freely admit that it is almost unavoidable when measures of great importance are brought forward in the early part of the Session, that other measures must be unavoidably kept back. In conclusion, the noble Lord asked the right hon. Baronet whether the Bill respecting the duty on coals would be persevered in or otherwise?
Sir R. Peelsaid, the Bill was in the nature of a continuous Bill, and should therefore be brought on.
Captain B. Osbornewould not oppose the bringing up of the Report on the Irish Colleges Bill, if his Motion could be taken on the third reading. As he was on his legs, he would wish to ask the right hon.
82
Baronet whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government, if the Landlords and Tenants Bill came down from the Lords, to carry it through that House this Session. He was the more anxious that a distinct answer should be given on this subject, because he believed the great majority of the Irish Members were waiting in town merely to know the course which was intended to be taken with regard to that Bill.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and until it came forth from that Committee, it was impossible that he could say what course the Government would pursue with respect to it.
Sir Robert Ingliswas well satisfied that his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had withdrawn from the further consideration of the House his Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. He trusted that the House would correctly understand his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) when he had stated that he was favourable to the principle of the noble Lord's Bill, inasmuch as he had himself introduced a similar measure to the House on a former occasion. Now he wished to remind the right hon. Baronet that the Bill which they had received, not indeed from his hand, but from his Government, was a Bill much less objectionable in its provisions than the analogous Bill of his noble Friend opposite. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would explain to the House that he would not adopt the noble Lord's Bill instead of his own.
Sir R. Peelsaid, Her Majesty's Government had very maturely considered the alterations which it would be desirable to have made in the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and they had accordingly brought a measure before Parliament, which had been assented to—he would not say by a very large majority, but by a majority of the House on the second reading. He should state that he preferred that Bill to the second Bill, now pending; and in stating that he was ready to vote with the noble Lord in favour of the second reading, he did not consider that he was adopting the measures of the noble Lord, in preference to the first Bill.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, he would wish to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the registration of voters in Ireland, and also for an Amendment of the Municipal Corporations Bill in that coun-

83
try. He thought it was somewhat extraordinary that the whole Session had been allowed to elapse without any Bills being laid on the Table of the House on these two important subjects, both of which were so much in need of alteration.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, it was distinctly stated by him, at a very early period of the Session, that he was anxious to introduce certain measures relating to Ireland, among which he wished that the Bill for the improvement of Maynooth, and the Irish Colleges Bill, should have precedence. A week would probably elapse before the latter Bill would leave that House, and under those circumstances, and considering how the Session had been occupied, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had a right to complain of any want of attention in the present Session to Irish measures. The right hon. Baronet was understood to add, that it was the wish of Her Majesty's Government that the Irish Municipal bodies should be placed upon the same footing as the English corporations.
Mr. Humesaid, he wished to have some understanding with regard to the tax upon coals. He would be glad that the Government should fix some day for discussing that subject. He objected to the tax of one penny a ton being fixed on coals, to be expended under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he could not at present fix a day for that purpose. The House should recollect that the tax alluded to by the hon. Member was not a tax imposed by Government, but a tax for effecting local improvements in certain parts of the metropolis.

THE MAGISTRACY OF IRELAND.
Viscount Clementsalluded to a letter read by the Marquis of Headfort at a meeting held in Ireland last week, of which the following was a part:—
"Dublin Castle, July 1, 1845.
"My Lord—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to state, for the information of your Lordship and the magistrates of the county of Cavan, in reference to the resolutions of a former meeting of the magistrates of the county, communicated to his Excellency by the Lord Farnham, that his Excellency has appointed Mr. Wilcocks to be superintending magistrate of the county of Leitrim and its borders, and that the following resident magistrates have been directed to place themselves in immediate communication with him for the purpose of more combined and effectual exertion towards the suppression of outrage; and
84
his Excellency trusts that the local as well as the stipendiary magistrates of the county will derive much advantage from this arrangement. Mr. Wilcocks has been directed to cultivate the most confidential intercourse with the local magistracy and with the military officers in command of troops in his district; and his Excellency has no doubt, from his known character and experience, that he will carry out the views of Government with regard to the district thus placed in his charge."
He (Lord Clements) wished to know what was meant by a superintending magistrate, and what were the intentions of Government?
Sir T. Fremantlethought, that if the noble Lord would read the letter throughout deliberately, he would be able to answer his own question, both with regard to what was meant by a superintending magistrate, and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. But he would inform the noble Lord, that the Government intended to use every exertion, and all the means which the existing law allowed them, to preserve the public peace in the disturbed districts of Ireland. An additional number of stipendiary magistrates had been appointed to those districts. Ten gentlemen had been directed to meet, in order to concert measures for effectually dealing with the state of affairs, and for dividing the districts and arranging the constabulary force for that purpose. It was thought desirable that one of the magistrates, Mr. Wilcocks, should act as the superintending magistrate of the county of Leitrim; with whom the resident magistrates, for the purpose of more combined and effectual exertion, should put themselves into communication, Mr. Wilcocks being the organ and channel of communication between them and the Government. The plan was similar to that which was adopted some years ago in reference to the county of Tipperary. It was not intended that Mr. Wilcocks should have any authority over the other magistrates. As to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, if the noble Lord would put his question more explicitly, he should be able, perhaps, to answer it more fully. But the Government was determined to use all the power they possessed, and they hoped successfully, to restore order and tranquillity in those districts where outrages had lately taken place.

PRIVILEGE—CASE OF MR. PARROTT.
On the Question that the petition pre-

85
sented by Jasper Parrott, Esq., be further considered,
Sir J. Y. Bullerrose to present a petition from Theodore Divett, of Totness, Devon, attorney, who stated therein that Charles Edwards was his partner, and had brought an action against Mr. Jasper Parrott, on behalf of one David Phillips, without ever having consulted the petitioner on the subject. Petitioner had never interfered in the proceedings, they being entirely conducted by the said Charles Edwards. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that he might be discharged from further attendance on the House. The hon. Baronet said, that the petitioner had assured him privately that these statements were true. He moved that the petition be laid on the Table of the House, and trusted that its prayer would be granted.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Sir J. Y. Bulleralso presented a petition from Charles Edwards, of Totness, and Thomas Baker, of Lime Street, attorneys, stating, that they had brought the action against Mr. Parrott on account of giving evidence before a Committee of that House, which evidence was stated in the declaration to be wilfully and maliciously false; that, in so doing, they were not aware that they were committing a breach of privilege, as they did not suppose that privilege would be extended to evidence not given bonâ fide. The petitioners also stated, that the indictment was so brought that the action would not lie unless it could be proved, in the first instance, that the evidence was known to be false at the time was given. They trusted that the House would not deem them guilty of an infraction of its privileges; and if they had committed a breach of privilege, they had done so unintentionally; and they prayed the House to take all these circumstances into consideration.
Petition laid on the Table.
On the Motion of Mr. Divett, Mr. David Phillips was called to the bar.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Speaker, he stated that he was a surgeon, residing in the parish of Buckfastleigh, in the county of Devon, and plaintiff in the action of "Phillips v. Parrott;" that the action was brought partly for what Mr. Parrott had stated before a Committee of that House, and partly for what he had stated before the board of guardians of Totness. Had heard the declaration in this action read. Was aware that the statement in the declaration related to a question
86
put to Mr. Parrott by an hon. Member of that House.
Are you aware that the answer given by Mr. Parrott to that question is stated in the declaration?
In reply to this question, the witness stated that he had no perfect recollection of the particular expressions. He understood them at the time he heard the declaration read. He had no intention of infringing on the privileges of the House; he knew nothing of the question of privilege: if he had done wrong he had acted unintentionally, and expressed his regret. He had pursued every means for the protection of his character, and had tried every means to get redress. All he wished for was, to defend his character; and he requested the board of guardians and Mr. Parrott to bring the matter forward, for the purpose of its being examined into, before he went to law. He had also written to the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject; but their answer was, that they could not interfere in the matter. His character had been destroyed, or attempted to be destroyed, and he was thrown out of his situation. It was twenty-four years since he had begun practice, and he was now no longer allowed to be the medical officer of the Union in which he was residing. The statement made against him in the Medical Poor Relief Committee was from beginning to end false, and he believed maliciously so. There was not one word of truth in it from beginning to end.
Sir J. Y. Bullerasked the witness whether, being now aware that he had committed a breach of privilege, by calling in question evidence given before a Committee of that House, he was now willing to instruct his agents to withdraw the action?
The witness stated, that he would bow submissively to the House; but he hoped that the House would take some steps to inquire respecting his character.
By Mr. Divett: Witness gave instructions to his solicitors to commence the action, he thought, about October, November, or December last: he left to his attorney to determine in what court to bring the action. After calling on the board of guardians to inquire respecting this matter, he wrote a circular to all the guardians; and he took the liberty, on the 22nd of November, of directing one to the noble Lord (Ashley) who presided over the Medical Poor Relief Committee.
In answer to questions put by several hon. Members, the witness proceeded to

87
state, that he felt himself aggrieved by the board of guardians collectively; he received no answer to the circular which he sent to Lord Ashley; he had been told, since he had been in town, that the best course for him to pursue was, to petition the House to inquire into the truth or falsehood of the evidence of which he complained; but he had hitherto presented no petition to that effect. He wrote the circular to Lord Ashley some time before the commencement of the action. The statement of which he complained was made before a Committee of that House. At the first meeting of the board of guardians after Mr. Parrott's return, Mr. Parrott said that the statements which he had made would shortly be printed and published, and that then would be seen what he had said.
Sir T. Wildeinquired whether there was any matter of complaint in the declaration, except the statement made by Mr. Parrott before a Committee of that House?
The witness said he had not read the declaration himself, but had heard it read, and it was perfectly in accordance with the explanation he had given. He was little acquainted with legal technicalities; but having read the statement made against him by Mr. Parrott before a Committee of that House, he declared that, from beginning to end, it was perfectly untrue; his action was brought for that matter, and the insinuation made by Mr. Parrott, in the board-room, on his return from London, to the effect that he would not then go into the statements, but that they might be seen when printed and published: not having taken a copy of the declaration, witness could not say whether anything was read to him from the declaration, except the evidence of Mr. Parrott before the Committee of that House.
By Mr. Baldwin: Witness had lost all his parish business; but could not say how far his private practice had suffered.
Mr. Phillips withdrew.
On the Question that Mr. Charles Edwards, attorney, be called to the bar, being put,
Lord J. Russelldoubted whether, before going further, they ought not to take into consideration the answer of the last witness to a question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir J. Buller). The witness had stated that he was willing to withdraw his action, and submit himself to the House. If that
88
were the case, if the witness did not wish to offend against the privileges of the House, and they should obtain from him a formal declaration in answer to a question put by the Speaker to that effect, he (Lord J. Russell) thought the House would have some grounds to proceed upon with regard to what was to be done. If such an answer should be given, he did not think it necessary, at least to-day, to examine the attorneys in the case.
Mr. Divettcould not agree with his noble Friend; it was evident that the party they had had before them knew very little of the privileges of the House; but his attorneys did, and, if they advised him, were the culpable parties. He must persist in his Motion that Mr. Charles Edwards be called to the bar.
Mr. Hindleysaid, the House ought to consider whether the allegations contained in the statement of Mr. Phillips were correct or not, before they engaged in a contest with the attorneys in the case. He thought that gentleman had stated a case which it was incumbent on them to investigate; they ought to do their utmost to ascertain the truth, but not allow any one to make statements injurious to private character.
Sir R. Peelwas inclined to agree with the suggestions of the noble Lord opposite; he thought it must be evident to every one that the witness who had appeared at the bar was not very competent to judge what was a question of privilege. He understood the witness to say that he was not cognizant of the privileges of the House, nor had he intended to infringe them. The House had sufficient evidence before it to come to the conclusion that the witness was aware he had committed an error, and was sorry for it. He thought substantial justice would be done if the witness, being apprised that this was not the way to attempt to obtain redress, should consent to withdraw the action, and the House should receive his acknowledgment that it was commenced in error; the House would afford the witness an opportunity of substantiating his case if it thought what had been stated before the Committee was false.
Mr. Roebuckadmitted that the House had received reparation as far as regarded the witness himself; but he was not the only offender. The real offender was behind; the person who had really offended was the attorney. The House ought to have from him the same assurance that he

89
had committed the offence, and was sorry for it. Unless he distinctly asked pardon of the House, it ought not to be satisfied.
Sir T. Wildehoped he should not be thought one who disregarded the privileges of that House; he wished to keep a broad distinction between the questions, whether parties should be allowed to submit to the courts of law the privileges of that House, and what the House might think proper to do on a complaint made to it by parties thinking themselves injured by matter published under its authority; these two questions were quite distinct from each other. Considering the present state of the question of Parliamentary privilege, it struck him that it would be unbecoming in the House suddenly to take up a case with the strong hand; after the late discussion on this subject a reasonable doubt might be entertained as to what would break the privileges of the House, and what would not. The House might well be satisfied with bringing the party to the bar, and warning him that this was a case involving a breach of its privileges, accepting his apology and offer to stay proceedings, rather than at once proceed against other parties or the attorneys. He thought the witness had given a sufficient indication of his desire to submit to the decision of the House; they had a statement that at a subsequent time the House would give him an opportunity of obtaining justice with regard to his character. But at the present moment the question before the House was whether this individual was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, whether he had done so knowingly, and whether he was inclined now to submit respectfully to the authority of the House? He thought, from the manner in which the witness had conducted himself, that he was willing to submit to the authority of the House; he entirely gave up his action. He thought they had better accept his submission, and for the present pass the subject by, because this revival of the authority of the House might be an example to others who would come before them with much less ground for excuse than the individual then in attendance; therefore, allowing the question suggested to be put by the Speaker, would be the best course for the dignity of the House. If they thought fit, they might afterwards call in the attorney, but they had better first dispose of the individual before them. With respect to the attorney, he could not proceed after his
90
client had given up the action; and as the late discussion had raised a doubt if the House had any privileges at all, whether this complaint might be a subject for legal investigation or not, it would be well for it to accept the apology, and, satisfied with that, to proceed no further.
Sir R. Inglissaid, as he understood it, the suggestion was that the witness should be recalled, and on stating his regret for having offended the House, and his willingness to withdraw the action, he should be released. But he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that the House was bound to proceed much further with respect to the two gentlemen who had framed the declaration. It was perfectly clear that the action was brought in respect to evidence given under the protection of that House; and such evidence was essential if they meant to discharge any functions of inquiry at all. So far he was perfectly willing to support the privileges of the House. On a repetition of the expression of regret for having violated the privileges of the House, and a formal renunciation of the action, the witness might be discharged.
Viscount Howickbelieved the witness was disposed to yield to the authority of the House; but he confessed he had a great objection to the suggested mode of proceeding—that of calling the witness in person to the bar, and asking him whether he was prepared to make that submission. The very fact of the House asking such a question would, in many cases, rather invite resistance. The more proper course would be, that the House should come to a Resolution declaring that the parties aggrieved by evidence given before a Committee of that House or at its bar, instead of seeking redress by an appeal to a court of law, should be bound to seek redress by applying for protection to that House. If this gentleman was aggrieved by such evidence, he ought to have petitioned the House for permission to proceed against the person giving the evidence in a court of law; or the House might have appointed a Committee to inquire into the justice of the complaint. But if they permitted legal proceedings to be instituted in the first instance, inquiry before a Committee would be nugatory. Having come to such a Resolution, they could adjourn further proceedings with respect to this party till he thought proper to petition them, withdrawing his action, and appealing to the House for redress. The moment such a petition

91
was presented, he should approve of his discharge from custody; but he would not consent that Mr. Phillips should be called to the bar and invited to make concessions, which he might possibly refuse, and by the refusal of which he would increase the difficulties and lower the dignity of the House. He had drawn up a Resolution on the subject to this effect:—"That the House does not allow any person aggrieved by statements made by witnesses before Committees or at the bar of the House, to institute legal proceedings against such witness for evidence so given, without previous permission from the House; and persons so aggrieved are bound in the first instance to appeal for redress to that House."
Mr. Humehad no objection to this being done; but they should first ascertain who had brought the action. The witness seemed to know very little about it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, there was one case so much in point, that the House ought to be aware of it. It occurred in the reign of William III., when a person named Gee prosecuted certain individuals for petitioning the House, and in their petition making allegations against his character. The matter was heard, and Gee alleged by his counsel that what he had done he had done in ignorance; when he found the question was taken notice of by the House, he ceased his action; but, notwithstanding that submission, the House voted it a breach of its privileges, and gave him in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Sir G. Greysaid, that as the witness submitted to the House, there was no doubt he would consent to present such a petition; and he suggested the question should be adjourned till to-morrow, to enable such a petition to be prepared.
Mr. D. Dundashad more than once felt that they were proceeding against the rules of natural justice. Here was a man standing without counsel or help before an assembly of this kind; in the case cited by the right hon. Baronet, that of "Gee and Kemp," the party rebelling against the authority of the House was furnished with counsel. In the present case they were not acting according to justice; they called on this unlearned person at the bar to explain the meaning of legal declarations, and asked him other questions which many learned Gentlemen in that House would find it difficult to answer. In the case cited, the question was referred to a Committee of that House. He believed that Committee was attended by counsel, and on the Report
92
of the Committee the House acted. In the case of Gee, the petitioners were a number of hackney coachmen, who alleged several grievances; among them that Gee, as a commissioner of hackney coaches, had received bribes for licensing, and had acted harshly towards them; and prayed the House to remove him from his office. Gee brought an action against the petitioners, calling the allegations scandalous libels. But it was held that such a course was a breach of privilege, tending to discourage people from seeking redress of grievances in the form of petition. The case was referred to a Committee on the 9th of February, 1696, which made a Report. Gee said that what he had done was entirely in ignorance of the privileges of the House; this witness said the same. Gee said he did it to save his reputation and character; so did this gentleman. Unless the House showed itself firm, they would have a plentiful crop of actions; they would have small attorneys, and perhaps large ones, bringing actions against witnesses for what they stated before Committees of that House. He hoped, before the House took any step that would shut the door against further inquiry, it would refer the matter to a Committee, and when the parties had been heard by themselves or their counsel, take such steps on the Report of the Committee as would maintain the dignity of the House, and prevent actions from being brought which were not only harassing to the parties, but, if successful, destructive to the authority of the House.
Lord J. Russell, after what had been said, thought there was little doubt except as to the mode of proceeding. If it was more regular that a petition should be presented to the House, he thought it better they should not proceed further without deliberation. He would move as an Amendment, that "to-morrow" be inserted in the Motion instead of "to-day."
The Speakerhaving put the Question,
Mr. Divettsaid, if it was the wish of the House that he should give way, he had no objection; but if he did so, it would be with the reservation of the right to call the attorney and the other parties to the bar.
Sir T. Wildesaid, he would be prepared to move a Resolution to the effect that it was made apparent to the House that Mr. Phillips had brought an action on evidence given before a Committee of that House, and that his having done so was a breach of privilege. He believed that a petition

93
from Mr. Phillips was already in the hands of an hon. Member.
Sir J. Y. Bullersaid, he had such a petition. It expressed the petitioner's regret that the action should have been brought. It stated, that at the time of commencing the action, he was not aware that he was committing a breach of the privileges of the House, but that he had since been informed that it was; and he now expressed his humble regret and contrition, and assured the House that no further proceedings should be taken in the said action.
Sir R. Inglisthought that it would be better, if the House determined to release Mr. Phillips, that he should be brought to the bar for that purpose immediately, as his detention till to-morrow would cause him considerable inconvenience and injury. At the same time, he doubted whether they ought to terminate their inquiry on the mere expression of Mr. Phillips's regret, and without being prepared to act with respect to the other parties also.
Mr. Warburtonhoped the hon. Member for Exeter would withdraw his Motion, so as to enable the House to dispose of Mr. Phillips's case, leaving that of Mr. Edwards and the other parties to be dealt with afterwards.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that in moving his Amendment, his object was to enable the House to come to some arrangement with respect to Mr. Phillips, before dealing with the case of Mr. Edwards and the others. He would withdraw his Amendment, if the hon. Member for Exeter would withdraw his Motion, the question as to the other parties being still left open.
Amendment and Original Motion withdrawn.
Sir T. Wildethen moved—
"That it appears to this House that the Action brought by David Phillips against Jaspar Parrott, Esq. is brought in respect of the Evidence given by Mr. Parrott before a Committee of this House."
Motion agreed to.
The hon. and learned Member then mov—
"That the commencement of the said Action was a Breach of the Privilege of this House."
Also agreed to.
Sir J. Y. Bullerpresented the petition of Mr. Phillips, expressing his regret that he had unknowingly violated the privileges of the House, etc., which was read.
Sir R. Peelmoved the following Resolution:—
"That in consideration that David Phillips has in his Petition, presented to this House, disclaimed all intention to violate its Privileges in the commencement of the said Action; and has expressed his contrition for his offence, and prayed the lenient consideration of the House for the same, and declared his intention not to proceed further in the said Action, this House does not deem it to be necessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence."
Resolution agreed to, and it was ordered that David Phillips be discharged from any further attendance on the House.
Mr. Divettmoved that Charles Edwards be brought to the bar.
Sir T. Wildesuggested the expediency of allowing the attorney until to-morrow to present a petition, if he thought fit. At all events, whether he came prepared to make his peace or not, the House would be in a better position to-morrow to deal with the case. He moved an Amendment accordingly.
Mr. Roebucksaid, he could not see any use in delay. The whole matter might be got through in half an hour.
Viscount Howickwas in favour of postponing any further proceedings until tomorrow. It would, in his opinion, be exceedingly impolitic to call the parties to the bar before they knew whether they were prepared to make concessions or not.
Mr. Humewas for proceeding immediately. It appeared to him that they would be lowering their own dignity by delay.
Mr. Divettwould be very sorry to divide the House on a minor point of this description. If he could gather the general feeling of the House, it was in favour of postponement until to-morrow. ["No, no."] Some hon. Members, at all events, were opposed to proceeding that evening; and with the consent of the House, therefore, he would withdraw his Motion, and move instead, that the parties should be ordered to attend at the bar to-morrow.
Mr. Wakleysaid, they had settled the matter with the principal; but the lawyer, who was the real sinner, was then in the lobby. The unfortunate Phillips had acted, no doubt, under the advice of his solicitor. With regard to him the proceeding was at an end, he having declared that he would abandon his action. All that the attorney could do was to show his contempt for their authority. If Edwards were called in that evening, he

95
would probably tell them under whose advice he had acted, and what counsel it was who drew up the declaration.
Mr. Grangersaid, that he could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, who said that it was inexpedient to call the attorney to the bar until he was prepared to state that he would make a submission to the House. There was no doubt that bringing an action, under the circumstances of this case, was a breach of the privileges of this House, and as they had already dealt with the principal in the action, he did not see why they should not have the attorney at the bar. He thought the most dignified course to pursue was to call in the attorney at once, and if he were prepared for submission, then they might postpone any further proceedings till to-morrow.
Viscount Howickstated that he had not said one word bearing the remotest approach to what the hon. Member (Mr. Granger) had attributed to him. What he said was, that the true mode of proceeding was, for the party to present a petition, expressing his submission, as, by asking him if he would submit, the House would invite refusal.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that they had received the declaration of the plaintiff, to the effect that he would not go on with the action; and after that declaration, it was quite clear the attorney could not proceed. All that the attorney could do in the case was to express his contrition for having undertaken the action, and after that expression of contrition, the question for the House to entertain was, whether or not the expression of his contrition was to be received as sufficient. He thought they had properly disposed of the case of the principal; but he was not so clear in his opinion as to the course recommended of entering into a contest with the attorney, as the case could not now go on, the principal having expressed his intention of not proceeding further with it.
Mr. Humehoped the right hon. Baronet would, under those circumstances, either move that the order for the attendance of the parties be discharged, or that they should be summoned to appear without delay.
Sir T. Wildesaid, that in this case the attorney could not go on without the consent of the plaintiff. There were cases in which the attorney might proceed to save his costs, when there was collusion between the plaintiff and defendant, to
96
prevent the attorney from getting his costs; but in the present case there was a bonâ fide cessation of the action, and the attorney could not proceed with it even though he should lose his costs.
Mr. Borthwicksaid he was authorized to say, on the behalf of the parties who were the subjects of the Motion before the House, that if they had committed any breach of the privileges of the House, they were sorry for having done so.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that what those parties were prepared to do could not for a moment enter into his mind so as to influence the course which he should recommend to the House; and he, therefore, could not feel the more inclined to call them to the bar, because the House had an assurance that they were sorry. It would be a shabby course, if they called in those parties, because, forsooth, they knew that they would express their sorrow at the bar for the course which they had adopted with respect to this action.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that the right hon. Baronet ought to bring the parties to the bar at once, or to discharge them altogether. If they gave the parties time until to-morrow to consider what course they should pursue, there might be many learned Gentlemen in this town who would advise them not to present a petition to the House expressing their submission. The question might then arise what redress an individual was to have who was slandered or defamed before a Committee of that House. If a witness gave false evidence before an Election Committee, he was likely to be indicted for perjury; and he did not see why witnesses before other Parliamentary Committees ought not to be equally amenable to the law. It would appear as if the House must in the end allow an action, if a witness gave false and slanderous evidence. In the present case the plaintiff stated, that by the evidence of Parrott, he had been ruined in his profession, in his purse, and in his prospects; and what redress could he obtain? He thought it would be better to discharge the order for attendance, and he should have been pleased if all the parties had been mentioned in the Resolution discharging Mr. Phillips.
Sir T. Wildesaid, that the Resolution discharging Phillips was directed only to him, because no other parties were then before them. There was a very great difference between the evidence of an individual before a Committee of that House,

97
and the evidence in a court of law; for before the Committee of that House there was no particular issue to be tried, and the witness had his mind ransacked by every question which the Committee pleased, being left no option. So that where questions were put at large to a witness, and in such a manner, it would be monstrous to confine him to the technical rules of evidence. When a man volunteered evidence of a defamatory character, the person so defamed would be in a very different position as regarded reparation; but where a witness was compelled to give evidence, it would be monstrous to allow the common law means of punishment to be brought against him, as if he had volunteered it. They should not come to a side-wind decision as to what was to be done for a person who had slanderous evidence given against him before a Committee of the House. The question as to what justice should be rendered to a person in such a situation should not be gone into at present, because it would not facilitate the decision of the present question, which was, what was to be done with the attorney in the action? He agreed with his hon. Friend that the other question was an important one; and if his hon. Friend should bring it before the House, he should be ready to render him all the assistance in his power. At the present it was expedient that the House should confine their attention to the question, whether it were proper that they should call the attorney to the bar to answer for his conduct, or whether, instead of calling him immediately forward, they should postpone calling him before them till to-morrow? He hoped the House was prepared to maintain its privileges; but he hoped also, that as it was not necessary to do so, they would not embark at present on the question raised by his hon. Friend. He thought that all that was expedient now was, that the parties who had violated the privileges of the House should be called forward tomorrow.
Mr. Roebuckobserved that the noble Lord had suggested that the matter should rest where it was until to-morrow, and that the parties should, in the meantime, find out what the House had resolved upon. Now the dignified, straightforward, simple, and manly course was to bring them forward to the bar immediately, and to say to them that they (the House) had read their petition, and had resolved that the action which they had
98
brought was a broach of privilege. Thereupon he had no doubt what would follow. Knowing the will and determination of the House in the matter, the parties would bow in submission to them, and would say that they had been wrongly advised in the step which they had taken; that they were mistaken in what they did; that they were sorry for it; and that now, upon being informed what was the determination of this House, they were ready to submit. That was the simple course to adopt. The noble Lord virtually proposed to shut up the whole matter. Could they do the parties any injury by calling them in? Could they risk the dignity of the House by calling them in? He was desirous that they should be immediately called to the bar, and that the proposal to postpone their appearance till tomorrow should be rejected.
Sir T. Wildeapprehended that the noble Lord was quite right in suggesting that the other party should not be called immediately in. They had resolved that the commencement of the action was a breach of privilege. They had also an acknowledgment by the attorney, who presented a petition, that he was the party who had brought the action, and he stated his reasons for bringing it. Therefore there was no doubt but that he was guilty of a breach of privilege. The only thing in which he differed from the noble Lord was, that they should now come to a resolution that their privileges had been infringed, and then adjourn the matter over till to-morrow. In order to avoid placing themselves in a situation of being compelled to act, they should give the parties an opportunity of presenting a petition, and making their peace with the House. [An hon. Member: If called now, they might apologize.] Apologize! How are they to apologize? The House could not accept an apology at the bar. The Parliamentary mode of apologizing was by petition. That was the only mode in which the House could entertain an apology. The more dignified course would be to adjourn the consideration of the subject till to-morrow. If they called the offending parties to the bar to-night, they would, he apprehended, be compelled to come to-night to some sort of resolution or another. If they must commit Mr. Edwards and Mr. Baker, as for breach of privilege, unless in the Parliamentary mode they made an apology to

99
the House, and if the House thought fit to sit still whilst the parties prepared their petition, all he could say was, that such was neither the usual nor the dignified course of proceeding. By adjourning the matter till to-morrow there would be no difficulty, as they might then vote that the parties had broken the privileges of the House, and then, if they thought fit to accept the apology, which the parties might make in the proper form, they might resolve that such apology was sufficient. It was not expedient to call them forward to-night, when, by their so doing, the parties would not have the opportunity of conciliating the House, and confessing their error.
Mr. Greenewished to ask the Speaker a question in reference to the point, as to whether a verbal apology at the bar was or was not sufficient to entitle a party to the indulgence of the House. He apprehended that a party standing at the bar, and there stating, in the presence of the House, that he regretted the course which he had taken, and praying the indulgence of the House, would adopt a course sufficient to maintain the privileges of the House, and that the House might act upon such a statement. If the parties were called to the bar, and were disposed to make such statement and application to the House, he apprehended that such would, in the present instance, be sufficient, without calling upon the parties to petition. Such a course would be quite sufficient to maintain the privileges of the House.
Sir James Grahamwished, before the Speaker answered the question put to him, to remind him of what the right hon. Gentleman had most likely not forgotten, that on the first appearance of Howard at the bar of the House, submission was made verbally, and not by petition.
Mr. Speakerobserved that the right hon. Baronet had reminded him of a case which supported the views which he had originally entertained of the matter, that it was not absolutely necessary that the parties should petition the House. If the parties should appear and submit themselves verbally at the bar of the House, that, he apprehended, would be sufficient. In this case it was necessary that the House should come to some determination as to what he should address to the parties when they were called to the bar.
Mr. Bernalsaid, that although he was disposed to concur in what the hon. Member for Finsbury had said, he was also disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Thomas Wilde), who suggested that that question could not properly be brought forward on the present occasion. Unless they were prepared to say that the parties should be at once discharged, he was not disposed to have their attendance at the bar immediately.
Sir R. Inglisdid not feel satisfied with the statement of the parties that they had acted in ignorance, because he saw in their declarations a most studied avoidance of any reference to the source whence they obtained their information.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that in the first petition which they had presented that evening, these gentlemen stated that they apprehended that the state of the law was that a witness was protected, except when he maliciously and slanderously stated facts which were not true, in giving his evidence; and that, as a witness was not pretected, under such circumstances, in a court of justice, they had argued that the protection of the House of Commons extended no further than that afforded to witnesses by a court of justice, and that it was under that impression that they had brought the action against the defendant. He had himself looked into the law on this matter, and found that there were strong opinions on the one side as well as on the other, as to whether witnesses were or were not to be protected who gave evidence in a court of justice of matters not true, with a slanderous and malicious intent.
Sir R. Peelwould repeat that he thought they were entering into a very unworthy contest with the attorneys in the cause, as they had got a sufficient apology from the principal; and if any inducement were wanting to desist from proceeding further in the matter, it now appeared that an apology in a proper form was to be given immediately by the attorneys.
Mr. Grangerobserved, that to him the debate had been very unsatisfactory. He feared that their course to-night would teach the public that if a man were bold enough to stand at their bar and defy them, the House would shrink from proceeding against him.
Motion and Amendment withdrawn.
Sir John Yarde Bullerpresented a petition from Charles Edwards, Thomas Baker, and the other parties summoned to appear before the House, stating that they were not aware, in bringing the action complained of, that they were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, expressing their contrition at having violated its privileges, and throwing themselves upon the indulgence of the House.
Viscount Howickobserved that all that now remained to be done was that the House should come to the same resolution as it had come to in the case of Mr. Phillips, and state that, in consideration that Charles Edwards, Thomas Baker, and others, had, in the petition presented by them, disclaimed all intention of violating the privileges of that House, and had expressed their contrition for their offence, and prayed for the lenient consideration of the House; on account of the same, the House did not deem it necessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence. He begged, therefore, to move that Resolution; and he would not prolong the discussion further, except to state, that nothing could be a more complete misapprehension of his views than what was stated by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Granger) when he observed that he (Lord Howick) and others were disposed to shrink from asserting the privileges of the House. He was disposed to maintain the privileges of the House.
A Resolution similar to that agreed to in the case of Phillips was adopted, and all the parties ordered to be discharged from further attendance on the House.

COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill.
On Clause 14,
Mr. Borthwickwished that the students should be required to attend divine service in their respective churches and chapels daily; and also that the following clause be inserted after Clause 14:—
"And for the better securing the due attendance of the students in the said Colleges for divine worship, according to the creeds which they severally profess to hold, be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the president and professors, or other governing body of each of the said Colleges which shall be constituted in and by the said letters patent, to assign chapels within the precincts of each
102
College for the use of chaplains, to be endowed in the same manner and by the same authority as the professors; and that within such chapels prayers shall be said, and divine worship celebrated twice every day, according to the forms required by such religious creeds as shall be recognised by such governing body; and that regulations shall be made for the due attendance of the students on divine worship at such of the said chapels as shall be approved by their parents or guardians respectively."
He should likewise propose the omission of Clause 14. Having given his silent support to the principle of the Bill, he should not now avail himself of this opportunity of reopening that discussion which occupied the House on the second reading; but should state briefly the grounds on which he sought to introduce into the measure what he believed to be no change of principle, but an important provision for carrying into effect the objects Her Majesty's Government had in view. It was admitted on both sides of the House that no education could be sound that was not based on religion. Under whatever circumstances man was found, whether in savage or civilized life, the one motive which especially governed all his actions, and shaped his social and civil existence, was a religious motive. That was a principle in human nature which the Legislature was bound to recognise in bringing forward a measure for the education and improvement of the people. In fact, no legislation could be sound which did not recognise, and endeavour as far as possible to control and guide, the religious principle in man. The great difficulty in the present instance arose from the religious hostility among the professors of rival creeds. If, for example, Dr. Higgins, who had been elevated to the episcopal bench in his Church, the Bishop of Cashel, and Dr. Cooke of Belfast—a man who held a high rank in the Presbyterian Church—were appointed to fill the chairs of the Professors of Theology in the new Colleges, he thought the dogmatic lectures of those men (eminent and talented as he admitted them to be) would be anything but calculated to promote religious charity among the students. The object of the proposition he made was to change the character of the religious instruction altogether—to make it, not didactic, but liturgic—to instruct the students, not by lectures delivered ex cathedra, but by means of the liturgy provided by their respective Churches. His object was to

103
place religious instruction in the Colleges about to be established in Ireland, on a footing similar to that of Oxford and Cambridge. The hon. Member for Liskeard said he received no religious instruction at Oxford, except what he received at chapel; and that there was less religious instruction provided there for the students than at the College at Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman, in saying so, was dealing with those unknown quantities with which he had become so well acquainted at Trinity. He himself (Mr. Borthwick) had had opportunities of knowing that in the College of Edinburgh the students were asked no questions about religion, unless they were intended for the Church of Scotland; and in that case, they were required to attend the prelections of the Divinity Professor. But at Oxford and Cambridge, if a student atteaded chapel regularly during three years, he would have had an opportunity of hearing the whole of the Old Testament read three times, and the whole of the New Testament nine times, independently of the selections of the Liturgy. By this means, an entire system of Christian theology, from the first Sunday in Advent till the last Sunday in Trinity, was brought before the minds of the students. He could not conceive a more complete system of religious instruction than that afforded to the students at Oxford and Cambridge. It was told of Mr. Pitt, that while in Pembroke College, he never missed attended chapel morning or evening he had proposed were adopted, the tenets of the Church of England, and also those of the Roman Catholic Church, could be taught without bringing sectarian points before the minds of the students. As the Presbyterian Church had no liturgy, they might meet for daily prayer. The reason why it was not necessary to teach dogmatic theology to every student in Oxford and Cambridge was, because in the former there were seventeen chapels, and in the latter twenty-four, open twice every day. He saw no necessity for the appointment of professors of dogmatic theology. There was no sectarian mathematics, no Roman Catholic geology, no Protestant anatomy. All that was necessary on the subject of general learning and science might be communicated without interfering with or encouraging the sectarian prejudices of any body. But if professors' chairs of theo-
104
logy were instituted, religious rancour and uncharitable feeling among the students would be the inevitable result. He believed the Bill before the House was calculated to effect the greatest good in Ireland; and that the only impediment to that good would be the 14th Clause as it then stood. He believed the proposition he made, if adopted, would communicate far more religious instruction, while it would be free from the disadvantage of intermixing that instruction with anything of a sectarian or uncharitable nature.
Colonel Sibthorpwished it to be understood that in opposing this Bill he was influenced by no uncharitable feeling towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He entertained great respect for the talent of the Government, but deeply regretted their inconsistency. Consistency was the strongest and greatest virtue of a Government. But the present Government had exhibited a subservient expediency, and a strong desire to go to the opposite side. He regretted to see such Bills as this and the Maynooth Bill emanating from parties professing the Protestant religion. He could not place much reliance on the professions of men who acted so inconsistently; for he judged of men by their conduct and not by their professions. There were times when he could not believe that the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. the Secretrary of State for the Home Department could be capable of bringing forward such measures; but now those Gentlemen were playing expected. He had opposed this Bill at its introduction; he should oppose it at he bringing up of the Report, and also at the third reading, and no modification of it would reconcile him to it. He regretted very much that the Government were acting with two faces under a hood, and not in the manner which they had led the country to believe they would act.
Sir J. Grahamregretted that the course which he and his Colleagues thought it their duty to pursue, did not meet with the approbation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Bill, however, was one of great importance, and not brought forward without a strong sense of its necessity. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for curtailing the observations be had intended to make, and for abstaining from a discussion of the general principles of the mea-

105
sure, though at the same time he (Sir J. Graham) must say the speech of the hon. Member was somewhat discursive. The hon. Gentleman must see that he was raising a question quite distinct from that contained in the clause before the House. The question of catechetical or liturgical instruction was provided for in other clauses of the Bill. With respect to religious worship in the boarding-houses to be licensed under this Bill, his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of York (Mr. S. Wortley) had given notice of an Amendment, namely, an addition to this clause with respect to the religious instruction to be given in those halls, and to that Amendment it was not his intention to offer the least obstruction. With respect to the halls, he had no objection to the employment of religious instruction. With respect to the third case, namely, the case of students living with their parents or guardians, he thought that in such a case as that the parents and guardians ought to be the best judges of what was necessary for the religious instruction of the students under their care and control. Neither would he consent to omit the words which his hon. Friend proposed to omit. His hon. Friend proposed that without the consent of the Crown the governing body of each of those Colleges should be competent to make regulations for the religious instruction of the students and pupils within the College itself. Now, the words used in this clause were—
"And that religious teachers recognised by the governing body, may, with the consent of the governing body, and the consent of the Crown having been previously obtained, have the use of such rooms, &c."
The question had already been raised that in those Colleges chaplains should be appointed. The sense of the Committee had decided against that proposition, and, à fortiori, he must suppose that the sense of the Committee would be adverse to the establishment of chapels in these Colleges, As he understood the proposition of his noble Friend, it was, that chaplains should be appointed, and that chapels should be built within the walls of those Colleges; and that the attendance of the students should be compulsorily enforced in those places of religious teaching and worship. Now, it seemed to him (Sir J. Graham) that any such forced attendance, whether of pupils under the control of their parents and guardians, or of pupils emancipated
106
from parental control—it seemed to him that to make the attendance of those pupils forced and compulsory, would be a great stretch of authority. His hon. Friend had said, that the great basis of all knowledge should be religous instruction. From that proposition he (Sir J. Graham) was not disposed to dissent. But they must see that the case of Ireland was a very peculiar case, and it was necessary to consider the present measure strictly applicable to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. Now, for instance, if they were to attempt to enforce any system of religious instruction according, for instance, exclusively with the tenets of the Protestant religion, the effect of such a measure would be practically to exclude seven-eighths of the population of Ireland. Effects equally objectionable would follow if they were to set up exclusively the tenets of any particular sect. If they were to confound religious with secular instruction, they must adopt some plan in which all might participate; and if they were to adopt a plan in which all might participate, they must exclude all points of religious difference. There remained then only one course open, and that was now under discussion, namely, that religious instruction should be provided for in the manner in which it was provided for in this Bill. He would not consent to this Amendment, which he considered to be at variance with the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Wysehad no doubt that, with the marked zeal which the Catholic hierarchy and clergy had in the worst of times provided for the spiritual wants of their flocks—a zeal which he could not so far wrong them as to suppose for an instant could be abated—they would be eager to make immediate provision, with the generous co-operation of the laity, which could not be better given than in such a cause, not only for chaplains in their respective halls, but for those professorships of religion in that ample sense to which he had just referred, embracing not doctrine only, and its important scriptural and traditional evidences, but its history and historic influences upon every age and generation. He believed, that at no period were the Catholic clergy more animated by the deep and sacred convictions of the necessity of religious instruction and teaching. It was, he knew, the fashion in other places, he was sorry to add at times also in that House, to represent the Catholic hierarchy

107
as adverse to the religious teaching of their flocks, and affected by a dread of the results of a free circulation of the holy word of God amongst the people. He was glad to have an opportunity afforded him, here in face of other religious communions, and in the midst of the Commons of England, on unequivocal authority, to repudiate the calumny. He held in his hands a passage purporting to be an extract from a speech stated to have been made by the Protestant Bishop of Cashel and Waterford, at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Church Education Society, March 27, 1845. He quoted from the Dublin, Evening Post of the same date. At that meeting, which was numerously attended, he is reported to have said—
"That they were assembled, not alone upon a subject of pounds, shillings, and pence, but upon one of principle—upon the principle upon which the Church was based at the time of the Reformation, when they separated from the Romish Church — the principle of giving to all classes a free access to the word of God, which their Society would diffuse, and which it was necessary to the existence of the Church of Rome to suppress."
Now, to this assertion—he would characterize it by no harsher term—of the right rev. Prelate, he could only oppose facts—facts vouched for by an authority at least not inferior to his own for veracity or any other Christian quality, he referred to the venerated Dr. Denvir. That most respectable prelate stated that previously to 1839, Mr. Smyth published 11,000 copies, Messrs. Simmons and M'Intyre, 18,000, Mr. Mairs, 9,000, and Mr. Archer, 2,000. From that period, Simmons and M'Intyre have published 22,000 copies, Mr. Archer 3,000 Testaments and 600 Bibles, in all, 72,600 copies of the Catholic Scriptures in one town, at the lowest price; giving no evidence, certainly, of a desire on the part of the venerable prelate, under whose authority they appeared, of the desire mentioned by the Bishop of Cashel to suppress the Holy Scriptures. But was this all? He had another document still more striking to refer to. In the number of the Nation, Feb. 8, 1845, the Bishop of Cashel, if he ever referred to such paper, would find the following advertisement:—
"The cheapest Catholic Bible of the size ever published. Richard Coyne, 4, Capelstreet, has published in twelve parts, at 6d. each, a stereotype edition of the Holy Bible,
108
octavo, containing 1,226 pages of letter press, double columns. Each part contains ninety-six pages."
And to this is subjoined the following recommendation, signed so early as 1829 by twenty-four Catholic bishops, headed by the Most Rev. Dr. Murray:—
"This new edition of the English Version of the Bible, printed, with our permission, by Richard Coyne, 4, Capel-street, collated by our direction, with the Clementine Vulgate; likewise, with the Douay Version of the Old Testament of 1609, and with the Rhemish Version of the New Testament of 1582, and with the other approved English Versions, we, by our authority, approve. And we declare that the same may be used with great spiritual profit by the faithful; provided it be read with the due reverence and the proper dispositions.—Given at Dublin, 2nd September, 1829."
Nor was this an idle letter; the Rev. Theobald Mathew, a name not to be mentioned in any assembly of Christians without gratitude and respect, was not less zealous for the dissemination of the sacred volume than the prelates themselves. He would take the liberty to read to the House the short Address which he directed to the Temperance Societies:—
"My dear Friends—As the united Catholic bishops of Ireland have especially recommended the faithful under their jurisdiction, 'to read with due reverence and proper dispositions the Holy Bible published by R. Coyne,' and as he now proposes to issue the Divine Volume under the same authority, in twelve parts, at 6d. each, so as to suit the means and circumstances of all classes—in order to assist in carrying into practical effect the recommendation of the venerable prelates, I humbly, but most earnestly, entreat all the members of the various Total Abstinence Societies, who, I trust, by being members of societies which have produced order, peace, and tranquillity, are prepared to read the Holy Scriptures with 'due reverence and proper dispositions.'"
It will be remarked in this, that the condition is, 'with due reverence and proper dispositions,' and from a version authorized by the Catholic Church, and with the commentaries consonant to her belief and interpretation. If the Catholic objects to a copy of the Scriptures, or rather to its being forced upon him, it is not on the ground (far from it) of its being the Scriptures, but of its being a version which he does not consider authentic, and its being unaccompanied with, in his belief, accurate and faithful interpretation.
Viscount Bernardsaid, that it was notorious that the Roman Catholic clergy, in

109
their chapels, denounced the reading of the Sacred Scriptures. Would any hon. Member deny that? Would the hon. Member for Kerry deny that in the western part of the county of Kerry, where a great number of converts had been made by the reading of the Scriptures, those converts could not publicly appear in those districts where they resided without meeting offence? It was useless to deny that the Roman Catholic clergy were opposed to the use of the Scriptures by those whom they guided.
Mr. Redingtondenied that the Roman clergy were opposed to the use of the Scriptures. With respect to the present clause, although it was not framed altogether in the way in which he wished, yet he would oppose the Amendment, and give his support to the clause.
Mr. Wysemust again assert that the Roman Catholic clergy took pains in circulating the Scriptures. In proof of this, he need only refer to the advertisement, which he had just read to the House, from R. Coyne, a Roman Catholic bookseller, advertising "the cheapest Bible ever published," the circulation of which was recommended by several Roman Catholic bishops.
Mr. Borthwickreplied: He had endeavoured, on opening this subject, to confine himself as closely as possible to the subject of debate. He regretted to perceive that that House seemed unfitted to the discussion of a religious question—not that a religious question was unfitted for the House, but the House seemed unfitted to the discussion of a religious question. His single object was to substitute liturgical for didactical instruction. Now let them suppose the case of Bishop Daly, of Dr. Higgins, and Dr. Cooke, three clergymen of strong opinions, inculcating those opinions each upon the pupils of his own creed. He could conceive nothing more calculated to lead to religious dissension amongst the students at those Colleges. He regretted deeply that the right hon. Gentleman had determined to oppose his Amendment. However, as he saw no chance of carrying it, against the right hon. Gentleman's opposition, he considered it would be only a waste of time to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. The hon. Gentleman stated that he withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Sir T. Aclandmoved after the words "or
110
to hold office therein," the insertion of the words "except as hereinafter provided;" and he moved that addition for the purpose of introducing a clause to the following effect:—
"Provided always that any person appointed to be president, vice-president, or member of the governing body of each of such Colleges, shall, before he enter upon the duties of any of the said offices, make and subscribe the following declaration:—'I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare that I acknowledge and receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as containing the revealed will of Almighty God.'"
He had paid the deepest attention to this Bill, and had given it throughout a zealous, but he must confess at first a reluctant support. He had followed his right hon. Friend in the difficulties which encompassed him on this subject. They all felt that Christianity should be the basis of any measure on the subject, of education; but then came the question of sect and religious difference. He had at first hoped, that religious education might have been provided for each of the three great sects in Ireland; but every day since he had more and more felt the impossibility of doing this. He made these statements to show that he felt the difficulties of this subject, and had no unfriendly feeling towards the present Bill. He made these statements also, because they made out his case. He wished to procure such securities as might be provided for the proper performance of their duties on the part of those in whose hands they were about to leave the education of Irish youth. His right hon. Friend had said that any attempt on the part of a professor to sap the religion of any student would be succeeded by instant dismissal. But the Parliament should not leave such a matter in the hands of the Government. The Legislature, on the face of the Bill, should declare their object and intention. For this purpose he had determined to propose some test or declaration to be made by the professors and governing body of the College. If any better mode of meeting the difficulty could be suggested, he should be most happy to adopt it in the place of his own; but in the absence of any such suggestion, he begged to press his own proposal upon the attention of the House. His inclination would have been to have applied the test or declaration contained in his clause to all the professors of the Colleges, though doubtless it was more

111
important with regard to some than others; but wishing to imitate the liberal and generous spirit which had been manifested towards the Government by the other side of the House, he was willing to leave that question to the decision of the governing body, placing confidence in them and the Government by whom they would be appointed. In preparing the declaration which he intended to propose, his object was to place a bar against infidelity; but at the same time not to introduce a word which could give the least pain to any class of persons believing in Divine Revelation. In support of the form of declaration which he proposed he might quote from the third volume of the Reminiscences of Dr. Arnold, a passage, in which Dr. Arnold, speaking of most different religious sects, said, "We all believe that the books of the Old and New Testament contain God's revealed will to man." He was willing to take his full share of the responsibility of this measure as it stood; but he felt that it wanted this conclusion, in order to secure it against abuse, and in order to render that homage to the religious feelings of both countries, of the value of which he was sure they were not insensible. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, after the words "or to hold office therein," to add "except as hereinafter provided."
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he rose to address the House with great pain; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government were quite sensible that he was actuated by no unkindness to them; but that, on the contrary, they felt bound to acknowledge the support which he had given them on that Bill—a support which, for many reasons, it must have been painful for him to give. His affectionate regard for his hon. Friend personally, and his respect for his principles, rendered it painful to him to resist his proposition; and if he were not convinced that he could not, consistently with the principle of the Bill, assent to it, nothing would have induced him to offer the opposition which he was compelled to give to the Motion. No man more deeply regretted the discussion of such subjects in that House; but it had been his unfortunate lot, in proposing measures for the last few years, to have given more frequent rise to discussions of that nature than perhaps any other man. He was most anxious to treat the subject with the utmost reverence and
112
respect. His own temper and feelings inclined him to do so. His hon. Friend had said that it was only in the absence of all general security for religious teaching that he had felt himself driven to propose the particular test contained in his clause; but he (Sir J. Graham) must say that he agreed with the hon. Member for Dundalk, that the safety of this measure rested on the weight of public opinion, and of responsibility brought to bear upon the present and all future Administrations; and he certainly could not have sanctioned the absence of all religious test as to the principals and professors of these Colleges, if the nomination of them and a power of removal also had not been vested in the Crown. He considered that security infinitely preferable to the one now proposed. He admitted the weight of Dr. Arnold's authority; but he was bound to point out to the Committee that the words of the proposed test would be no sufficient security against the evil which they were intended to provide against. The professor would at once, when required to make this declaration, put the question, "To what version of the Scriptures do you allude?" Were Protestants all agreed upon one version? Had not Unitarians an entirely different version from that of the Established Church? Would not the Unitarian take the test in a different sense from the members of the Established Church? And as to the books of the Old Testament, were there not very material differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic versions? He was grieved to enter into such a discussion; but it was forced upon him. He could point out other reasons why the proposed test was insufficient for its object, but he abstained from pursuing a subject of that kind. He thought, he had shown that the words—open on other grounds to great objections—would give no security for the promotion of sound religious instruction; whilst, on the other hand, the Bill provided ample security against any attempts to sap the religious principles of the students. So far from discouraging religious education, they had supplied every inducement to provide religious instruction out of the walls of the College, and within the walls they had afforded facilities for giving such instruction. It was not from any doubt in his mind, therefore, that religion was the basis of all human knowledge, that he opposed the Motion; he believed that re-

113
ligious knowledge was that which purified the leaven of secular knowledge, and if this Bill should discourage religious instruction, he should greatly regret it; but he did not believe that any such result would follow. He believed the Roman Catholics could, by private endowment, secure religious teaching; and that lectures would be delivered in the Colleges in conformity with the leading creeds of that country, the Roman Catholic, the Presbyterian, and the Established Church. No test was required; but the responsibility of the Government in the selection of the officers of these Colleges was, after all, the best security against any abuse; and, therefore, reluctantly, but decidedly, he must oppose the Motion.
Sir R. Ingliswas surprised that, with the sentiments which had been so well expressed by the right hon. Baronet, he did not come to the same conclusion with his hon. Friend (Sir T. Acland). He was happy to find before the House a proposition which he could support, as he did that of his hon. Friend, involving at least some improvement in the present measure.
Mr. Cowperrejoiced in having an opportunity of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, as it comprehended a principle in which he thought that all who deserved the name of Christians might agree.
Lord J. Mannerssaid, that the closing observations of the right hon. Baronet brought him to a different conclusion from that at which the right hon. Baronet had arrived. In referring to the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown upon this subject, he must add, without wishing to say anything which might cast suspicion upon the present, or upon any Government, that he could not help reflecting upon what was taking place in France upon questions of this sort, where a system of education which was upheld by the whole weight of a Government, of which M. Guizot was a leading member, was stigmatized as an infidel system. From the best investigation which he had been able to give to this question, and the statements which had been made upon it, he must say, that when they were about to introduce a similar system in this country, it behoved them to weigh with the greatest care every proposition which was brought forward of so dangerous a tendency. With reference to the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Acland),
114
he was willing to accept it, though it might not go to the extent of doing more than partially mitigating the evils of this system. Having listened to the discussions which had taken place on other clauses of this Bill, too, he could not change the opinion he had hitherto entertained upon it, viz., that it was not a Bill which ought to meet with the support of that House. That opinion he entertained religiously; and, in repeating his objections to it for the last time, he must add, that he did not believe this Bill would produce any good effect; and his only hope was, that it would produce no effect whatever.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the proposition of the hon. Baronet was simply a precaution against infidelity. But was infidelity an evil in Ireland, against which it was necessary for them to legislate? He did not believe there was a country in the world in which the charge of infidelity would expose a man to such reprobation as in Ireland. But take the case of England. Was infidelity an evil in England at the present day? He did not believe that in England, or in Ireland, infidelity was an evil against which it was necessary that Parliament should legislate. There could not be a doubt that the Crown would grossly neglect its duty in first appointing any person to an office in these Colleges against whom the charge of propagating infidel doctrines could be brought, or, if appointed, in continuing him in his office. It appeared to him, then, that the security it was proposed to give under this Amendment, was a perfectly delusive one, and that the state of religion in these kingdoms was such as to render it unnecessary to take such ground against this measure as that proposed.
Mr. Philip Howardopposed the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Acland); as a Catholic, he feared, if adopted, it might lead to the inference, that tradition was not a necessary part of the groundwork of faith. It would also be better in a new measure not to revive the system of tests, where no imperative and cogent necessity required it. It would be well to reserve the power of naming a Jew to the chair of Hebrew, in the same manner as it would be natural to appoint a German, or a Frenchman, to the Professorships of their respective languages. If inclined to criticise the terms of the proposed test, he should say, it would be more correct

115
to affirm the Scriptures to be the word than the "will of Almighty God;" as the will "could be only known by the interpretation given to Holy Writ." Upon the whole, he (Mr. Howard) deemed it unadvisable to insist on the adoption of this or any other test; for, with alt respect to the motives of the Mover, and, above all, with all reverence to the written word of God, he did not think the cause of religion would be a gainer by its adoption.
Mr. Adderleysaid, that if the Colleges to be established were to be confined to the teaching of the natural sciences, the religious tests would be unnecessary; but as they would trench on this field of moral duty, the case became altered. He had voted for the Maynooth Bill because it recognised the duty of the State to provide for the religious instruction of the majority of the people; and he should vote for the Amendment, because the Government proposition was a retreat from that principle.
Lord C. Hamiltondid not think there was any country in which there was so much religion and so little infidelity as in Ireland.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the high character of the hon. Baronet who had proposed this Amendment, and of those Gentlemen who supported it, was such as to render it incumbent upon those who entertained objections to his proposition, and who yet had a sincere regard for religion, to say something in support of their reasons for disagreeing with it. He must say, then, that he thought there was much force in the objections which had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) as to the ambiguity of this test. His hon. Friend must be aware that between Protestants of different sects, and certainly between the Church and the Unitarians, there were many differences with respect to the original version of many portions of the Holy Scriptures. Now, as to matters of general principle, he must say, that it was undesirable for parties engaged in the selection of a test to choose words which they not merely suspected, but which they knew must be used by different classes of persons in a different sense. It was difficult to secure perfect bona fides as to tests; such: had been hitherto the case; and what hope was there of maintaining a defined and single interpretation of such tests in
116
future times? He was not fond of adopting new theological propositions, and he could not consent to adopt a solemn proposition like this without seriously looking to the terms in which it was couched. The Motion of his hon. Friend called upon them to adopt a pre-enunciation of a positive theological principle, couched in language partly resting upon the authority of a Member of Parliament, and partly on that of Dr. Arnold. The proposition was a new proposition—it was not one adopted in turns by the Church of England; and he was afraid that if the House were to adopt it, his hon. Friend would find a difficulty in regard to it, on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ireland themselves. He considered that it was at once open to the charge of being too exclusive, and too lax. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had adverted to the case of a large class of theologians in Germany connected with what was called the rationalizing school. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think any member of that school would feel any greater objection to the terms of the hon. Baronet's (Sir T. D. Acland's) proposition than might be felt by some members of our own church. Indeed, he did not know whether even Dr. Strauss himself, who had acquired an unhappy notoriety in connexion with the school to which he referred, might not be prepared to subscribe the test proposed by his hon. Friend. He held that in certain cases the objections to such a test were entirely outweighed by the advantages which might attend it, and the necessity which rendered it advisable. But he did not entertain that opinion in the present case, for he did not think any advantage could accrue from the application of such a test; but that, on the contrary, great evil might result from holding out a delusive promise which could not be realized. He considered, therefore, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend, far from being an improvement on the Bill, would be entirely the reverse. Believing, then, that this was an ambiguous and equivocal proposition—that it could attain none of the purposes for which such a test ought to be employed, while it was open to strong objections, and that it was a positive evil to make a provision for attaining a religious character by means which they knew to be insufficient, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment.
Mr. Redingtonwas satisfied the hon. Baronet, in bringing forward this Amendment, did not wish to throw any aspersion upon the religious creed of Catholics; but that he was merely introducing what he considered an essential safeguard in a measure of this nature. He must say, however, that if this Amendment went to a division, he would feel it his duty to vote against it; for the introduction of such a test as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman would excite great dissatisfaction among the Roman Catholics of Ireland.
The Committee divided on the Question that the words be inserted—Ayes 36; Noes 105: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Austen, Col.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Morris, D.

Barrington, Visct.

Patten, J. W.

Bernard, Visct.

Pringle, A.

Buck, L. W.

Rashleigh, W.

Carew, W. H. P.

Repton, G. W. J.

Courtenay, Lord

Rice, E. R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Dick, Q.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dickinson, F. H.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

East, J. B.

Spooner, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Tower, C.

Gladstone, Capt.

Tufnell, H.

Greenhall, P.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hamilton, G. A.

Waddington, H. S.

Henley, J. W.

Hope, A.

TELLERS.

Jervis, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Lambton, H.

Acland, Sir T. D.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Chapman, B.

Aldam, W.

Chelsea, Visct.

Antrobus, E.

Clements, Visct.

Archbold, R.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baillie, Col.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Baillie, H. J.

Corry, right hon. H.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Craig, W. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Cripps, W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Denison, E. B.

Blake, M. J.

Duncan, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Borthwick, P.

Dundas, D.

Bowes, J.

Emlyn, Visct.

Bowles, Adm.

Escott, B.

Boyd, J.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Bright, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Broadwood, H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Brotherton, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Browne, hon. W.

Forster, M.

Bruce, Lord E.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Bunbury, T.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Gill, T.

Butler, P. S.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Cardwell, E.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

118

Gore, hon. R.

Peel, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Plumridge, Capt.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Polhill, F.

Granger, T. C.

Praed, W. T.

Grimston, Visct.

Pusey, P.

Halford, Sir H.

Redington, T. N.

Hamilton, W. J.

Ross, D. R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Russell, J. D. W.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Hindley, C.

Smith, A. J.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Hope, Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, G. W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hotham, Lord

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hughes, W. B.

Stuart, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lawson, A.

Tennent, J. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Thornhill, G.

Lockhart, W.

Trelawny, J. S.

M'Neill, D.

Tuite, H. M.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Wakley, T.

Martin, C. W.

Warburton, H.

Meynell, Capt.

Wawn, J. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Neville, R.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Newport, Visct.

Wyse, T.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

TELLERS.

Packe, C. W.

Young, J.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

On the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Hindleycontended it involved a violation of liberty of conscience, for it precluded students from resorting for instruction to tutors of their own religious creed, while it compelled them to receive the tuition of professors appointed by the Government. He had, therefore, to move that the clause be omitted.
The Committee divided on the Original Question:—Ayes 100; Noes 0: Majority 100.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bruce, Lord E.

Acland, T. D.

Bunbury, T.

A'Court, Capt.

Butler, P. S.

Aldam, W.

Cardwell, E.

Archbold, R.

Chapman, B.

Austen, Col.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Baillie, Col.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Barrington, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Cripps, W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Dickinson, F. H.

Blake, M. J.

Dundas, D.

Borthwick, P.

Escott, B.

Bowes, J.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Bowles, Adm.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Boyd, J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Broadwood, H.

Flower, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Forster, M.

Browne, hon. W.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

119

Gill, T.

Peel, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Pringle, A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rashleigh, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rawdon, Col.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Redington, T. N.

Granger, T. C.

Repton, G. W. J.

Halford, Sir H.

Ross, D. R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Scott, hon. F.

Hamilton, W. J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Smith, J. A.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hope, G. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Jermyn, Earl

Stuart, H.

Jervis, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lambton, H.

Thornhill, G.

Lawson, A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Tufnell, H.

Lockhart, W.

Vesey, hon. T.

McNeill, D.

Waddington, H. S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Wakley, T.

Martin, C. W.

Warburton, H.

Meynell, Capt.

Wawn, J. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Morris, D.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Neville, R.

Wyse, T.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

O'Connell, M. J.

TELLERS.

Packe, C. W.

Young, J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Mackenzie, W. F.

List of the NOES.

TELLERS.

Bright, J.

Hindley, C.

Clause agreed to, as was Clause 15.
On Clause 16,
Mr. John S. Wortleymoved the Amendment of which he had given notice, with a view to connect the Colleges with religious instruction as much as possible—
"To insert after the words, 'lodged and boarded therein,' the words, 'and also the provisions and regulations proposed to be made for securing to the said student the means of due attendance upon such religious instruction and divine worship as may be approved by his parents and guardians, and recognised by the governing body of the College.'"
Amendment agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
On the 19th Clause,
Mr. Spoonerobjected to the clause as giving an endowment to any teacher of whatever form of belief he might be. It was not even restricted to the endowment of Christian ministers. Such a conflict of religions would tend to infidelity among the pupils.
Mr. Philip Howardcontended that no great evil could arise from the retention of
120
the 14th Clause, which gave a power to the different religious communities, by private contribution, to endow chairs of theology. It was a well known truth that, in other affairs of life, opposition prevented imposition. In the case, then, before the House, the rivalry of different creeds would give an impulse to talent, and prove an incentive to exertion; the religious zeal of individuals should be allowed to supply what was unavoidably wanting in the Government measure. Should an appeal be made to the Catholics of England, he (Mr. Howard) doubted not that he would come forward in aid of his Irish co-religionists, and would strive to procure for the youth of Ireland the blessings of a religious education in the faith of their forefathers. Some years must necessarily elapse before the Colleges in question could be built and opened; ample time would, therefore, be given to organize a subscription in furtherance of the great, object they had in view, so dear to that House and the country — namely, the combining religious tuition with literature and scientific attainments.
Mr. Hindleyopposed the clause, as contrary to the spirit of the Mortmain Acts in this country.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses of the Bill.
House resumed. Report to be received.

EXCISE AND CUSTOMS.
House in Committee on the Excise and Customs Act.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he wished to move certain Resolutions to be embodied in the Bill. The object of the first was to place grocers who were dealers in spirits in Ireland under the same supervision of the police authorities as other dealers were subject to. The other Resolution had reference to the importation of spirits from Guernsey and Jersey into this country. At the present time those islands enjoyed advantages which were not allowed to any other part of the United Kingdom. The introduction of compound spirits from Scotland and Ireland was prohibited, and that prohibition ought to be extended to Jersey and Guernsey. He, therefore, proposed, that a duty of 9s. a gallon should be put upon spirits imported into England from those islands, and a proportionate amount on spirits imported into Scotland and Ireland,

121
with a prohibition altogether of compound spirits.
Resolutions agreed to. House resumed, and adjourned at a quarter before 2 o'clock.