Lords Sitting of 22 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS Public.—1a. Church Discipline Act Repeal; Railways (Selling or Leasing); Highways; Bonded Corn.
2a. Geological Survey; Silk Weavers.
Reported.—Art Unions; Militia Ballots Suspension; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Colleges (Ireland).
3a. and passed:—Loan Societies; Apprehension of Offenders: Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Highway Rates.
Private.—1a. Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Hastings, Rye, and Ashford Extension).
2a. Yoker Road (No. 2); Dublin Pipe Water; South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells); Birmingham and Gloucester Extension Railway (Stoke Branch); Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road; Marquess of Westminster's Estate.
Reported.—Gravesend and Rochester Railway; South Eastern Railway (Greenwich Extension); Londonderry and Coleraine Railway; Cromford Canal.
3a. and passed:—Lutwidge's (or Fletcher's) Estate; Tacumshin Lake Embankment; Aberdeen Railway; Bermondsey Improvement; Sheffield Waterworks; Edinburgh and Hawick Railway; Edinburgh and Northern Railway; Caledonian Railway; Clydesdale Junction Railway; Dundee and Perth Railway; Newcastle and Berwick Railway; Scottish Central Railway; London and South Western Metropolitan Extension Railway; Scottish Midland Junction Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland, and from Haddington, and several other places, in favour of the Universities (Scotland) Bill.—From Presbytery or Synod of Munster, in favour of the Colleges (Ireland) Bill.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES.
The Marquess of Breadalbanepresented several petitions from places in Scotland, praying for the abolition of all religious tests in the Scottish Universities. One of the petitions was from the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, which embodied several resolutions in which the exclusion of all religious tests was not advocated, but in which the petitioners expressed themselves strongly against the exclusive system now sought to be revived by the members of the Established Church in that country. He begged, in presenting these petitions, to express his sincere regret, that the measure which had been brought forward in the other House of Parliament for remedying this grievance, had been lost by the opposition of Her Majesty's Government; though they had originally expressed themselves favourable to it. The Scotch Colleges would now afford education to but a comparatively small portion of the population; whereas, if the Bill to which he had alluded had passed, they would be able to afford the most important benefits to the people generally. In his opinion, the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), in introducing the Irish Colleges Bill, was the very best introduction that could have been made to a measure for Scotland.
Lord Stanleydenied that the Government had acted inconsistently with regard to Ireland and Scotland. They required no new test in the latter country; and they expressed their determination to maintain the existing test in the case of the University of Dublin, He must, however, decline
872
entering into the discussion of a measure which had been rejected in the other House of Parliament, and which had not come under their Lordships' consideration.
Lord Campbellrepudiated the idea of reviving a law that had been allowed to lie dormant for more than a century; and under which his esteemed friend Sir David Brewster—a man whose reputation was European—was in danger of being turned out of his office.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had a question of privilege on which to claim their Lordships' attention, which, of course, had precedence of all others, including that which his noble Friend had just brought under their notice. It was known to their Lordships, that he was one of those—forming, he feared, a minority in their Lordships' House—who entirely disapproved — who on principle disapproved—of all violent and forcible exercise of what were called the privileges—but what he would call rather the powers than the privileges—of Parliament; and that, consequently, he confined his objections to the exercise of those privileges, to certain cases where they were not used in the nature of remedies, or removal of obstructions; but that he, at the same time, constantly—and so did many noble Lords, noble Friends of his, who agreed with him—entirely approved, as of necessity they must approve, of the existence and exercise of privilege, where it was confined to removing obstructions to their Lordships' proceedings. Whether the case which he was about to bring before their Lordships fell within that description or not, he would not say; but after the course which had been recently taken within the present Session, and only a few days ago, he felt it to be his bounden duty, that he should, even if he were not the person individually concerned in this breach of privilege, bring it under their Lordships' attention. It was necessary to state, before he read to the House a statement which had been published in a newspaper, that they took notice elsewhere, as he was informed by common report, not only of what passed in their Lordships' House, but even in their Select and Secret Committees, designating the very persons who had spoken, and commenting on the speeches made. He did not choose to retaliate by taking any notice whatever of what passed in the other House, unless he

873
happened to see it reported in the Votes. But when he perceived this publication, he could not remain silent respecting it. So gross a fabrication, and so scandalous a libel on the other House of Parliament—not only on a Member of the House, but on the House itself as a body—could not well be imagined. He knew that the other House could protect itself, and defend its own privileges, and that without any interference on the part of their Lordships; but still the subject was one, he was prepared to show, worthy of their Lordships' notice. Some weeks ago, he was informed by the Votes of the other House that a Railway Bill having been reported against by the Standing Orders Committee, for almost innumerable breaches of the Standing Orders, that Report was received by the House; and then a Member of the House, as he perceived also by the Votes, of the name of Mr. Fitzstephen French, came down, and made a Motion to rescind the Resolution, and to allow the Bill to proceed. He was reminded by his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle), that the name of the hon. Member was not mentioned in the Votes; but, at all events, a Member made a Motion to rescind the decision of the Committee, in consequence of the narrow majority by which it had been obtained; he had, however, reason to know, and that from matters which occurred out of the House, who the hon. Member was. He took notice of what he had seen on the Votes of the other House in his place in Parliament, in order to give the parties concerned what he thought was a humane, and considerate, and generous warning, in order that they might not be throwing away their money in support of the Bill; because if, as was not improbable, it would be found that the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House, as well as those of the other House of Parliament, had been violated, no majority of their Lordships would be found to rescind the vote of their Committee. After that announcement, he was waited upon by Mr. Fitzstephen French; and that fact, though not recorded in the Votes, he knew of his own knowledge. He, or a person calling himself Mr. Fitzstephen French—for he had not the honour of knowing the Gentleman previously—waited upon him (Lord Brougham) on the subject. He would say nothing of the unduly complimentary terms which the Gentleman applied to him; of the great power and weight which he possessed; and of the somewhat exaggerated,
874
and almost fanciful terms in which he described the power which he (Lord Brougham) was likely to have in this matter. He gave Mr. Fitzstephen French credit, as he did now, for being exceedingly anxious on the matter; he had no doubt whatever but that it was from a purely generous and public principle, that he took so great an interest in the Dublin and Galway Railway; and that if he was the Member who had given the Notice to induce the House of Commons to rescind the vote of their Committee, he did so from a highminded feeling—that, in fact, he had no more concern in the project as a director or shareholder, than he (Lord Brougham) had; but that he thought on the matter as he believed it to be his duty as a good Irishman to do. He had been willing to give him (Mr. F. French) credit for these patriotic feelings; but he had since discovered that this person was actually one of the directors of the Dublin and Galway Railway Board; and he also found out, in the course of the inquiry that had been delegated to him, that all these directors took shares as a qualification for their office. He had found, too, that almost all the directors took, besides the twenty shares which it was necessary for them to hold as a qualification, five hundred shares each over and above, that they might be more certain of having an interest in its success. But he had likewise discovered that the invariable rule followed by almost all these directors was, the very moment they got these five hundred shares, to keep just twenty of them, necessary for their qualification, and to sell the others. In that way, it appeared that one gallant officer, a gallant general, made no less than 700 l. or 800 l., as well as, of course, at the same time, gratifying his patriotic feelings towards Ireland; and that these directors were thus sellers of their shares, and that they profited thereby. He did not blame them; but they had seen lately two gentlemen most severely visited for interfering in railway shares, as if they were the only persons who had ever done anything of the kind; whereas it was upon the evidence of the very Committee by which they were condemned, that others without number had done the very same thing, without being condemned; and, in fact, all that had been done by those who were so complained of was, that they received shares as a compliment, after the thing was over; nor did it appear, that their vote or interest was ever affected in the slightest degree by any

875
previous bargain. He stepped aside willingly to do this act of justice to individuals who had been oppressed by a Pharisaical purity, which had lately been got up on the subject of railways, and which, before the Session was over, would be found to be misplaced. It was more agreeable to him to do justice to them than to himself on the present occasion. He drew a distinction, however, between them and those persons who made Motions to get majorities in favour of certain Bills, and who voted themselves, as if influenced by patriotic principles, while they were at the very time shareholders in the projects which they supported. If Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero had done that, he should regard their conduct in a very different light from that in which he now viewed it. However, when this gentleman, Mr. Fitzstephen French, applied to him, he threw himself on his protection. He (Mr. F. French) called it mercy; for he said, that if they were great and powerful, he hoped they would also be merciful. He added that he adopted the course which he had taken, in consequence of the absence of his noble Friend then behind him (the Marquess of Clanricarde), thereby meaning to insinuate that the noble Marquess was as fond of the Bill as he was himself; and that if he had been present, he would have been a party to the application. He had never seen this individual before, and he had scarcely met him since. His answer to him was, that he should wait till he saw the Bill; and that the parties would find it difficult to get over the Standing Orders; and that their Lordships allowed no canvassing on Private Bills; that he could have no communication with him except what was official and public; but that he should be happy to receive any useful suggestion to guide him. Their Lordships would recollect that a noble Friend of his had presented a petition from a gentleman and banker of the name of Pym, which complained that the share list of this Company had been made out by inventing names, and signing falsely signatures for others, who had given no authority for doing so, and that thus the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House had not been complied with. So great a fraud, alleged to have been practised by any parties in their Lordships' House, led to an immediate appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter. He had the honour of being one of that Committee; and in his capacity of a Member of the Committee
876
he had had communication with two individuals. One of these was Mr. Smith, who was parliamentary agent for the petition, and against the Bill; and the other was a Mr. Croucher, of whom he knew nothing, but who had given him a letter on the subject, which he had put in his pocket, and had never read to this hour. The other papers he had received he had handed to the Chairman of the Committee (the Earl of Besborough). They were, under the Orders of the House, to receive this information; they could not choose but receive it, and they acted upon it. They then sent for Mr. Smith and Mr. Croucher, and desired them to point out the names which had been forged, fabricated, or signed by the persons nominating. He pointed out some eight or ten cases, into every one of which the Committee minutely inquired. In the course of this inquiry the name of Fitzstephen French occurred, and the very question at which he took such grievous offence was not put by the Committee themselves, but read from a paper of Mr. Pym, whose charges against the railway shareholders and brokers the Committee were commanded to inquire into. He (Lord Brougham) was about to read that which appeared in a morning paper of that day, The Times, and which he should presently state his reasons for believing to be a gross fabrication. It purported to be the report of a debate in the other House of Parliament—pretended to be, but he should say falsely; and he would presently show why he called it false, not merely technically, but substantially:—
"Mr. French considered that the House was perfectly correct in watching with a jealous eye the conduct of those to whom it delegated its authority. He would state this generally, as it appeared to him that it should not be limited in its application to parties only who had been mixed up in pecuniary transactions. There were other still greater delinquencies than any that had been alluded to that evening. Could the House for a moment conceive the person who had been selected, in this or the other House of Parliament, as a judge, placing himself in secret communication with the agent of one of the parties—receiving and acting upon information he acquired in this manner from the individual who had been selected to get up the opposition to the case he had been appointed to try—browbeating every witness brought up by those who were defending themselves—having the indecency, in a railroad case, to demand whether their shares were at a premium? and, being answered in the affirmative,

877
declaring he would 'take care to have them at a discount;' and, ultimately, suppressing the evidence which disproved the case he was anxious to establish? Would not the case be worse if this individual had once occupied a high legal station? Perhaps you will tell me that conduct such as this can only be accounted for by the individual being fitter for being placed as an inmate in a large establishment at the other side of the water, than for occupying a seat in either House of Parliament, Conceive a Company placing before him every document in their possession, in reference to the case—the minute-book of all their proceedings—their bankers' accounts, showing all their money transactions, and into which the Company courted an investigation, tendering their Chairman for examination, whom he refused to call, but behind his back basely attempted to calumniate, asking, 'Had he ever been a candidate for a lucrative employment in a rival railway?' Possibly such a question should be regarded with contempt, as coming from one who had shown himself incapable of either thinking, acting, or speaking, as a gentleman; but as he (Mr. French) was the person about whom this question was put, and feeling that, was there the slightest foundation for this base and dastardly insinuation, he should be unworthy of a place amongst them, he had deemed it his duty to call their attention to the fact. The individual about whose conduct he had spoken (and he was prepared to establish every statement he had made) was Lord Brougham and Vaux, and the case the Dublin and Galway Railway."
He thought he might well ask their Lordships if ever they had seen, in the whole course of their lives, a more foul and libellous, and he was about to show it to be false—but had they ever seen a more foul and slanderous attack on any individual? And this attack was upon an individual not volunteering his services, but compelled by their Lordships, ordered to attend a Committee, and obliged, in the execution of that duty, to put questions, whether he would or no. The Committee were obliged to put the question alluded to, because Mr. Pym the petitioner had written it, and given it to the Committee, and it was from his handwriting that they had put it. In the whole course of the proceeding they had acted in every respect according to the strict rules of legal evidence known in all the courts of justice. Now, the first thing alleged was this, "Could the House for a moment conceive the person who had been selected in this or the other House of Parliament as a judge"—that was utterly untrue, it was an absolute and entire blunder and confusion
878
of ideas. He was placed in an inquisitorial, not a judicial situation. They were a Committee appointed to inquire into and report the result of their inquiry, and their Lordships and the Committee on the Bill alone were the judges; but, it went on to say, "placing himself in secret communication with the agent of one of the parties, receiving and acting upon information he acquired in this manner." He refused all communication on the subject; he received letters which he did not read, and refused to speak to Mr. Smith or Mr. Croucher; but that was accidental, for he had a perfect right to speak to them. They did not want to get secret information behind people's backs—they only wanted to know what witnesses they were to call, and it was his business to examine into that. He never had the least secret communication with any human being whatever on the subject. "Browbeating every witness brought up by those who were defending themselves." That he sharply examined one or two witnesses was true, and if he had not so examined them the truth would have been concealed, delinquencies would not have been brought to light, and great culprits would have escaped. It was proved that the names of persons who never had been in existence were forged; that he sharply examined any one excepting the person from whom he obtained those facts, and one or two agents of the Company who he saw were giving unsatisfactory answers and fencing the questions, was perfectly untrue; that he browbeat any one of those witnesses was utterly false—if he had attempted to do any such thing the noble Chairman and the rest of the Committee would at once have checked him. And here it might be right that he should step aside and say that he had no interest against the Dublin and Galway Railway; that he knew nothing of that or any rival Company; and that he never was concerned with any railway except in one instance, and that was twenty years ago, when he held twenty-five shares in a railway for a few weeks, having been desired by some gentlemen of the town of Liverpool to patronise it, by giving his name (having been connected with the town), but he disposed of them as soon as he could. "Having the indecency in a railroad case to demand whether their shares were at a premium,"—(it was one of the very things to be inquired into) — "and being answered in the affirmative,

879
declaring he would take care to have them at a discount;" as if he could have done so! It was evidently untrue—if he had said anything at all. He said, probably, that when this evidence came out—evidence of a parish pauper who could not read and write being put down as having paid 175 l. deposit, and having an allotment of shares to the amount of 7,500 l.—it was probable they would soon be at a discount—that would be a very natural observation. "And ultimately suppressing the evidence which disproved the case he was anxious to establish." That was impossible; and if any man of common sense, not being in a violent fury when he wrote this, had reflected for a moment, he would have seen that no Member of a Committee had the power of suppressing evidence. But he would tell their Lordships what this passage meant, and a most precious jumble and falsification it was. After the Committee had seen how all these things were done, a witness was produced to show that what had been done with reference to the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill was done in all other Railway Bills. They said it might be wrong, but there was no peculiarity in it; and to prove this they produced Mr. Joseph Parke, an attorney, very well known about the Houses of Parliament as an attorney. He was produced in the extremity of the case to give his evidence. He appeared totally unconnected, and it was supposed that he had no connexion with this railway at all; but the manner in which he gave his statement led him (Lord Brougham) to believe that he was connected with the railway, or, at any rate, that he had a great feeling for it. Be that, however, as it might, he told the Committee that this sort of thing was done every day; that it was done on the York, on the Western, and on other railroads. He was asked whether he knew this of his own knowledge; and his reply was, that he had been connected with the lines only when before Parliament; and when he was further asked whether he had anything to do with the issuing, the allotment, or the giving of shares, his answer was,—"Oh no, I had nothing to do with the lines before they came before Parliament." He was ready to vouch for what he believed to be the truth, but he knew nothing about it; he knew nothing except from hearsay; and it was clear the Committee could not take that as evidence. This gentleman had not been sworn, but, if his evidence had been of value to either side, he would
880
indisputably have been sent to be sworn, and then his evidence would have been received. Finding, however, that he knew nothing, the Committee saw he could tell nothing; and, if he had been sworn fifty times over, he could not have given hearsay in evidence, and, consequently, he was not sworn and not examined. But Mr. Parkes put the Committee in the way of obtaining evidence; for when he was asked who would probably be able to give evidence on the acts of the York Company, his reply was, that most probably the secretary could. The secretary of the York Company was accordingly sent for by the Committee, who thoroughly believed from Mr. Parkes's statement, that he was coming to speak for and to bolster up the agents, the secretary, the attorney, and the brokers. The next day the secretary of the York came and was sworn, and anything equal to the contrast and the striking difference between the proceedings of the York Company, with its respectable directors and secretary and agents, and this Dublin and Galway line, he had never in his life seen, and it was impossible to conceive. This showed the small use of the examination of Mr. Parkes, for Mr. Parkes thought they had done the same thing. With respect to the Dublin and Galway Railway, out of 970 applicants for shares, only 111 had given any reference as to character or solvency; whereas, the rule of the London and York was never to receive any applications for shares without a reference; so that all the rest of the applications beyond the 111 would have been thrown in the fire by the London and York. But it was not so with the Dublin and Galway. What, however, did the House think this Company did with these 111 cases? The London and York sent a man about for more than six weeks, making inquiries and asking whether the individuals were such as they had themselves described. He gave his report, and according to that report the shares were allotted. What did the Dublin and Galway do? Did they examine into these 111 cases? They made inquiry as to just twenty-nine. Of these twenty-nine they found that about fourteen, or one-half, gave false and fictititious accounts, that they were unknown at the place to which references were made, or that they were paupers. Therefore, they stopped; they did not inquire into the other eighty cases, fearing, no doubt, that if they proceeded further they might fare worse. They proceeded, therefore, to make their allotment of shares,

881
and amongst others to Margaret Meredith, who was described as of Lower Tooting, Surrey, with the memorandum, "Inquire of Mr. Edward Bayley, Stockwell, Surrey." Did they inquire? No; because said Mr. Heseltine, he thought a respectable address was given when it was Lower Tooting, Surrey. So that every resident of Lower Tooting was held fit to receive an allotment of 7,500 l. shares, and capable of paying a deposit of 175 l. This party, however, happened to be a pauper, and when she was asked whether she had written the application, she replied she could only say she could not read it, for she could never read or write in her life. But there was the broker's certificate of her respectability, and shares were allotted her. Among Mr. Heseltine's, the broker's, certificates, also, was that of Mr. Penton, a person who had never existed at all, and of a man who had been for six years in the West Indies, and knew nothing of the application. All these were duly certified by Mr. Heseltine, the broker, and were declared respectable. The way in which the applications were examined was, that as the 1st of November was a leisure day, the broker sat down at the office and examined 800 or 900 of them in four hours, giving about twelve seconds to each. He only wished that other business could be despatched with equal facility in an equally short space of time. That was the result of the comparison between the London and York proceedings and the proceedings of the Dublin and Galway Company. Was he right, then, in saying that to talk of suppressing evidence was not only not the truth, but was the very reverse of the truth? The Committee had sent for the witness, whom all expected to give evidence in favour of the Company, and he had given this damning evidence. Then it was complained that the question was put, "Had he ever been a candidate for a lucrative employment in a rival railway?" Why, there was no slander in putting that question; but it was no question of the Committee's own—it was still existing in the handwriting of the petitioner whose petition was referred to the Committee. Now with respect to General Caulfield. It was supposed that he had been sharply examined; but he left the Committee Room, after the second day's examination, perfectly satisfied. On the first day of his examination, indeed, he made but a poor figure; but no question was put which was not respectful to that
882
respectable individual, and he believed that, after the second day, he left the Committee perfectly satisfied, as might be seen by the last question and answer of the last examination. These were the facts of this case, and he would add only one other circumstance. It was a singular thing that there should be a very accurate account given in the newspaper of this speech, and he much doubted whether the words were heard in the place where they were pretended to have been uttered. In the paper which he saw, it was stated that "the hon. Member spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be quite inaudible," and others had told him the same thing; nevertheless the speech was given at full length. Now, he warned some people of one thing—that they were protected for what they said in Parliament, but they had no protection in printing their speeches. Lord Abingdon had been sent to prison for having printed and published a speech he had delivered, and Mr. Creevy was also punished, though he published his speech, optimâ fide, to protect himself against a gross misrepresentation of what he had said, which was more libellous than what he published. He (Lord Brougham) was his counsel, but he was nevertheless convicted, and when the House of Commons was called upon to interfere with the matter as a breach of privilege, that great upholder of privilege, Mr. C. W. Wynn, declared that it was no privilege. There was another salutary warning he would give for the benefit of the newspapers. It was no defence for a newspaper, if it printed a libel on any man, to say that it was uttered by a Member in his place in Parliament. God forbid that such a defence should be good; for if the 1,100 Members in that and the other Assembly could with impunity utter these, or any other words, and if with impunity the newspapers were allowed to publish what was so uttered, this country would be intolerable. It was quite as well that he should state this. Then came the question what were they to do in this case? He left that question in the hands of their Lordships. They held the doctrines of privilege, and he was anxous to see how the privilege men would act in this case. They had lately decided that a Committee of that House could not discharge its duty unless the witnesses who should give evidence before them should be protected; possibly their Lordships might think it quite as necessary to protect the Members of the Committee; he knew not whether

883
they would so think, but he left the case in their hands. If they chose, they might allow a newspaper to print anything. His opinion was, that the courts of law were the proper places for redress, and he for one would proceed before them rather than in that House by force and power. One word more as to whether this pretended speech was ever delivered. He was disposed to think that it was not. He entertained a high respect for the Commons' House of Parliament; he held in high respect their privileges when they were not exceeded; he held in high value their powers, which were just and right, when they were not abused; he venerated that body as the popular branch of our mixed institutions; and he knew it to be the most essential of all. Therefore, he who knew how high the privilege doctrines were there held—he, who knew that their Lordships held their privileges high, but the other House of Parliament held them higher still—he, who knew that they had lately fought with the courts of law, and although beaten for a moment had afterwards gained the victory—he, who knew that the Commons had threatened even to proceed against the Judges of the land whom their Lordships had never menaced—he, who knew that the Commons held this as the corner stone of their privileges, namely, that those privileges were not confined to one House, but common to both—he must believe that, unless he should cease for ever after to respect that House of Parliament, unless all the veneration he had felt should no longer be entertained for that House as at present composed, but for an ideal and abstract House as it ought to be composed—he who held that House in veneration until they should by their own deeds make it impossible for him any longer to respect them—he, therefore, knew that the Commons must give their Lordships the same privileges which they arrogated to themselves, and in proportion as they were high privilegians they must be most cautious and most tremblingly alive to sanctioning any breach of their own privileges. Gracious God! could he, with those feelings, for one instant believe it possible that such ribaldry as he had read to their Lordships was suffered to be spoken in that House, against a Peer of Parliament acting upon a Select and Secret Committee, and not one word of reprobation, of censure, of reprimand uttered? Did the House of Commons hear those words—could they have heard them
884
—could they have heard any man, however much he was to be pitied for the fury into which his passions had hurried him—whether they were sordid passions arising from disappointment of expected gains, or whether it was passion arising from a less reprehensible and despicable motive—he meant the wrong-headed notion that the question of which complaint had been made impugned the character and conduct of the individual to whom he had alluded, whilst it had not the remotest tendency to cast a slur upon him? But whether in one sense or the other, that House was bound, if they heard those words, and if they meant ever to talk of privilege while they had any existence, they were bound, he said, to protect their Lordships, and the Members of their Secret Committees, from the foul abuse which was represented to have been thus uttered in their presence. But what followed? At the end of the last sentence were these words, there being no reprimand from the chair, no Motion that the words be taken down, no censure, no disapproval, not one word, not even a whisper—"the Motion for the production of the letter was then agreed to." Therefore he said that this which was so represented to be said, must be falsely represented: he would not believe that the House of Commons had heard those things. He must believe that either the words were not spoken, and were a fabrication, or that if spoken they were not heard by the House, as the other papers said they did not hear them; or that if they were heard, it was so indistinctly that no one knew well what the matter was they contained; and that supposition alone made it possible for any one who wished to retain a vestige of respect for that House of Parliament to believe, if the words in question had been heard, that they had been allowed to pass without any animadversion. With these observations, in which he trusted he had said nothing to wound the feelings of any man—he had cautiously abstained from any offensive topic, unless where he was bound to say that gross falsehoods had been stated—probably from some misunderstanding, misconstruction, or misinformation—for there were agents before the Committee, but none of the parties in question—with these observations he would leave the question in their Lordships' hands.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, he wished to correct one error of the noble and learned Lord. It was not a Select and Secret Committee,

885
but a Select Committee, from which all persons were excluded except the witnesses and parties admitted by leave on both sides. On the first day on which the Committee met, the agents put into his hands, as chairman, the names of certain witnesses whom they wished to have summoned before the Committee. On the second day they put some papers into his hands, with observations as to the mode in which those witnesses were to be examined. The agents for the opposition party also stated to him that, as the agents of the promoters had been admitted on the first day, they thought it would be but fair that they should be admitted also; and accordingly they were admitted. Those were the only persons admitted. Observations were made opposite to each name. His noble and learned Friend examined the witnesses from the Papers before him; and he had no doubt that all the questions, or the main purport of them, were found in those Papers. The agents of the promoters of the Bill applied to him for a copy of the Paper containing the heads of observations; he told them he could not give it them without consultation; and the agent for the Bill had, he believed, afterwards been furnished with a copy of the observations which had been handed to the Committee for the examination of the witnesses. With reference to the suppression of evidence, he must confirm the statement of his noble Friend. The gentleman was called in, who gave a detailed statement of certain facts, and when he was asked whether he knew them of his own knowledge, or had only heard them from others, he stated that he had heard them from others. Therefore he (the Earl of Bessborough) ordered the shorthand writer to strike this evidence out of the evidence. A gentleman gave a detailed statement of facts, but said he did not know them of his own knowledge. He could only say, that with respect to the whole case, he was sure he should be borne out by the other noble Lords who were on the Committee, when he said that the proceedings were conducted in the fairest way to all parties. An application was made to him to send to the House of Commons to ask for leave to examine Mr. Fitzstephen French; the Committee, however, were of opinion that it was not necessary, but they did not come to that decision from any disrespect to that gentleman.
Lord Broughamwished to add that he had delivered in the Papers containing suggested questions without reading them:
886
the inkstand was before his noble Friend, and the Papers laid across the table between him and the inkstand. The reason why Mr. French was not examined was, that there was no charge whatever against him. The question whether he had not canvassed for a lucrative employment, which had needlessly excited so much irritation, was negatived, and he (Lord Brougham) did not think it signified a straw, or he should have examined him.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that after the statement of his noble Friend, he could not but feel persuaded that as gross a breach of privilege as he had ever known, had been committed. It was impossible for their Lordships to abstain from taking notice of it; but what notice ought to be taken he had not had sufficient experience to give an opinion. After such a case had been brought forward in so strong a manner, and after the noble and learned Lord had so completely succeeded in vindicating himself from the outrageous attack made upon him, it was necessary for the House to determine what farther steps ought to be adopted. Much depended upon the wishes of the noble and learned Lord; but if he left the matter in the hands of the House, it seemed to him (Lord Wicklow) that it would be right to summon the printer and reporter of the Times newspaper to the bar, that their Lordships might know whether it was or was not a correct report. Other newspapers stated that the hon. Member delivered himself in so low a tone that his words could not be taken down; therefore it was fit, in the first place, to ascertain whether the words imputed had or had not been spoken. Under any circumstances, it was a gross breach of privilege — an attack made upon a Member of the House of Lords, in the execution of his duty in one of the Committees. It was the duty of the House to protect him.
Lord Broughamsuggested that it was too serious a matter to be hurried. He thought there should be no further proceeding in it that day.
The Duke of Wellingtonremarked, that the subject required a good deal of consideration before the House decided what course it would adopt. The proposition of his noble Friend was, that the editor of the newspaper should be called to the bar.
The Earl of Wicklowinterposed that he say that he had only suggested such a course, not submitted it as a proposition.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to observe upon it only as a suggestion. The

887
question to be asked of the editor must be, whether he had or had not been guilty of a breach of one of the privileges of the other House of Parliament? Whether he had published what was or what was not said in the House of Commons? The answer in either case would implicate him in a breach of privilege. He begged to suggest to their Lordships that the farther consideration of the subject ought to be adjourned till Thursday, in order that in the meantime the best course of proceeding might be considered on what seemed to him a very grave case.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the printer of the newspaper might be asked generally from what source he derived his information.
The further discussion was then adjourned till Thursday.

COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.
Moved that the House do resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Stanleysaid, that he had a trifling Amendment to propose in relation to the proviso of the 14th Clause, which proviso was somewhat at variance with the Clause. It had reference to the lecture rooms for religious instruction, and he proposed to retain the proviso that no pupil should be required to receive any religious instruction but such as was approved by his parents or guardians. He would take this opportunity of alluding to the suggestion of a noble Marquess (Marquess of Lansdowne) last night, that Ministers should give the new Colleges the privileges of a University. He admitted that the grant of the power to confer degrees seemed a natural complement of the measure. Ministers were of opinion that it would be incomplete without it; but the question required more consideration than it would now be possible to afford to it. Perhaps the most satisfactory course, on some accounts, would be to affiliate the new Colleges with Trinity College, Dublin; but their Lordships would be aware that there were difficulties in the way of such an arrangement. Then came the question whether the new Colleges ought not to be associated as a separate University, the general meeting to be held either at a distinct place or alternately at one of the Colleges. It would obviously be highly desirable, upon this and other points, that the opinions and wishes of the governing bodies should be ascertained, and for this and other
888
reasons, delay seemed not inexpedient. Ministers had this object distinctly in view, and, as he had stated already, without the attainment of it the measure before the House would be imperfect.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas quite satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord, and was extremely glad to find that what he had suggested, had already been contemplated by Her Majesty's Government. He could easily understand why the object could not be accomplished in the present Session; but he hoped that it would be kept constantly in view. He entertained a very confident opinion that it would not be desirable to place one of the Colleges at the head of the others, but some neighbouring town or even village might be selected as a central position for all. The manner in which University and King's Colleges, London, had been affiliated and formed into one University, would form a useful precedent to guide Ministers in their design to raise the new Irish Colleges into a separate University. If he did not propose any Amendment to the Bill on the subject of the appointment of professors, it was because the arrangement giving the choice to Ministers was only temporary.
Lord Campbellwould only offer one suggestion. It appeared that Ministers intended to endow several new Colleges in Ireland; three had been previously spoken of, but last night four were mentioned.
Lord Stanleysaid, that what he meant was, that in future there would be four Colleges in Ireland.
Lord Campbelladded, that his suggestion was, that instead of three new Colleges only one should be founded. Great difficulty might be experienced in establishing three Colleges at once, and he doubted whether a sufficient number of pupils would be obtained in the first instance. If only one general College were opened, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics, would be brought together and united in one common pursuit of knowledge, and they might form friendships which would last for life. The manner in which the whole of Ireland would soon be intersected by railroads, would remove all difficulty of conveyance, and the pupils from all quarters might be collected in one establishment. To this establishment the power of granting degrees might at once be given, and it might

889
be raised to the dignified position now occupied by Trinity College, Dublin.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould not agree with his noble and learned Friend, and was convinced that the foundation of only one College would not satisfy the wants or the wishes of the people of Ireland. He saw no reason why the new Colleges should not be affiliated with Trinity College, Dublin, and such an arrangement would give the greatest satisfaction to the main body of the people. Trinity College had not had justice done to it, as regarded the number of men of letters and science she had produced.
Lord Monteagleentered into some comparative details connected with the new Colleges, and urged that the establishment of a new University was necessary to render the design of Ministers complete. It was very fit that time should be taken to consider the best means of attaining this object; and he apprehended that delay would be attended with no practical disadvantage.
The Earl of Ellenboroughthought that difficulty would be found in the outset, in procuring a sufficient number of persons capable of filling the office of professor: no doubt Government would use their best exertions, but he doubted how far they would be successful. It was impossible at once to create a College like Eton, or a University like Oxford; lives must pass away before it was accomplished, and reputation could not be conferred by Act of Parliament. The real benefit to be derived from such institutions was the formation of good citizens with kindly feelings towards each other, generated by early association.
House adjourned.