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.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Foreign Lotteries; Law of Defamation and Libel Act Amendment.
2a. Drainage by Tenants for Life; Brazil Slave Trade; Arrestment of Wages (Scotland); Dog Stealing; Administration of Criminal Justice; Timber Ships; Unions (Ireland).
3a. and passed:—Real Property Conveyance (No. 2).
Private.—1a. Aberdare Railway; Erewash Valley Railway; Bristol Parochial Rates; Saint Helen's Canal and Railway.
2a. Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway and Bury Extension); Middlesbro' and Redcar Railway; West London Railway Extension and Lease; North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway.
Reported.— Edinburgh and Northern Railway; Wear Valley Railway; Shepley Lane Head and Barnsley Road.
3a. and passed:—Trent Valley Railway; Lyme Regis Improvement, Market, and Water Works.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Samuel Gordon, Esq., Dublin, for the Insertion of certain Clauses in the Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill.—By Marquess of Londonderry, from Landowners of Upper and Lower Castlereagh, against the Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill.—By Marquess of Clanricarde, from Stockholders and others of Bathurst (New South Wales), complaining of Proclamation issued by the Governor of the Colony relating to Regulations touching Depasturing Licenses.—From Landowners and others of Midsomer Norton, against the Real Property Deeds Registration Bill.—From Mark Silverston, of Duke Street, Aldgate, complaining that Proceedings have been commenced against him for selling Bread in the City of London, without being free of the Bakers' Company, and praying for Inquiry and Relief.—From Provost and others of Musselburgh, against certain parts of the Infeftments (Scotland) Bill.—From Freeholders of County of Kerry, for Alteration of Law relating to Juries (Ireland).—From Eliza Price, complaining of conduct of Samuel Stone Brisco, Esquire, (a Magistrate,) and others, and praying for Inquiry and Relief.

DRAINAGE BY TENANT FOR LIFE BILL.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the Second Reading of the Bill to amend an Act of 3rd and 4th Victoria, and enable the owners of settled estates to defray the expenses of draining the same by way of mortgage. The Bill was now drawn as directed by the Committee, and related solely to draining; there were other questions, such as giving a power of leasing for nineteen or twenty years, and also a power of exchange, which was very desirable, particularly now railroads severed property, so that twenty acres might be left on one side of the rail belonging to one owner, and twenty acres belonging to another might be left on the other side: these subjects, however, might be the subject of legislative enactment hereafter. It had been thought desirable by the Committee to extend the Bill to Ireland as well as to England; and it simplified the proceedings by enacting that a Master in Chancery, on being satisfied of the outlay, should give a certificate which is to operate as a rent-charge, and as the application was to be made in the first instance to the Master, much expense would be spared.
The Marquess of Salisburydid not mean to oppose a Bill which was likely to afford employment to the poor; but he hoped his noble Friend would give

55
them a fair opportunity of discussing the details of the Bill, particularly with regard to the part which permitted persons to raise money upon settled estates for the purposes of building.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that question was much discussed in the Committee, and in his opinion buildings must be included, or the Bill would not be effective. He did not intend ornamental buildings, but such as sheds for cattle, which had always been considered permanent improvements, and which must be increased if there was increased produce. He never knew a Bill on which he felt less difficulty in giving a vote in its support. It improved the position as well of the tenant for life as of the remainder-man; it would benefit the occupier as well as the holder. It was an attempt also to simplify the legal proceedings, and render unnecessary those heavy law expenses for petitions, a specimen of which was given to the Committee, which extended to two closely printed pages of items.
The Earl of Devon, as a Member of the Committee, supported the Bill, which preserved the control of the Court of Chancery, and at the same time reduced the expense. He hoped that it might be made appendant to the Bill relating to tenants' rights in Ireland. It pointed out the objects which it was the desire of the Legislature to obtain, and was of the utmost importance to the general improvement of the agriculture, not only of this country but of Ireland.
The Earl of Wicklowapproved of the extension to Ireland, and hoped that powers would be given to the guardians of infants to effect these improvements.
Lord Campbellalso approved of the principle of the Bill, and rejoiced that it was extended to Ireland. For more than half a century they had had such a Bill for Scotland, and in all respects as the Bill now stood he highly approved of it.
The Duke of Richmondsaid there was a clause in the Bill which would, he believed, have the effect of enabling guardians to drain.
The Lord Chancellorhad not till now read the Bill; there were several details in it with respect to the Court of Chancery; he did not object to the second reading then; but he would communicate with his noble Friend the noble Duke any
56
suggestions which occurred to him with regard to that part of the Bill.
Bill read 2a.

STANDING ORDERS — RAILWAYS.
The Marquess of Clanricardemoved that there be inserted in every future Railway Bill, a Clause to enact—
"That the Directors appointed shall continue in Office until the First Ordinary Meeting to be held after the passing of the Act, and at such Meeting the Shareholders present, personally or by Proxy, may either continue in Office the Directors appointed by this Act, or any Member of them, or may elect a new Body of Directors, or Directors to supply the Places of those continued in Office; the Directors appointed by this Act being eligible as Members of such new Body."
On Question, agreed to, and ordered to be added to the Roll of Standing Orders.

COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND SELECT COMMITTEES.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid he would take that opportunity, which was not altogether irregular, of stating some circumstances connected with railways deeply affecting the interests of all their Lordships and of every man in the country, and which must call for another addition to the Standing Orders, for the purpose of affording a sufficient protection to Members of Parliament. It might be known to their Lordships, and if it were not it would appear strange, that an hon. Gentleman, now a Member of the other House of Parliament, was placed at this moment in a situation in which any of their Lordships might be placed also. This hon. Gentleman, about seven years ago, was invited to become a subscriber and director in a Company for establishing steam navigation to India by the Cape of Good Hope. After looking at the nature of the undertaking, he advisedly declined to become a subscriber or director of the Company. Of course he then dismissed the Company from his mind, and neither directly nor indirectly had he done any act as a director. Notwithstanding this, after five years had elapsed, a demand was made, in consequence of his name being inserted as a director without his knowledge or consent in the Act of Parliament obtained by the Company. The demand made on him was for the amount of all the claims for which the Company had become liable, as the other persons whose names

57
had been mentioned had turned out mere men of straw. His name being found in the Act gave grounds for proceedings being commenced against him in a court of law; and although he could prove that he had refused to be a director of the Company, and although he had never acted as such, an opinion obtained from a high legal authority stated that, inasmuch as the Act of Parliament itself was a legal publication, he was legally represented as a director. Now he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) begged to ask their Lordships whether they were not all in the same situation? Were not all their names inserted in one form or another in all the local Acts that had passed through the Legislature? And were they not all liable to be made a subject of action? To show the extent of the impudence and the audacity of the parties engaged in getting up trading companies, he would state a fact which had come to his knowledge. A Gentleman, a Member of Parliament for one of the counties, was asked to become a director of one of these projected companies, and he refused. A short time afterwards he was told that he had attended at a meeting in the county with which he was connected, and had spoken in favour of the projected scheme. His attention being called to the Report of this meeting, he found not only that he was stated to have attended, which he did not, but he found also that many other persons were asserted to have been there, and to have made speeches, although they did not attend such meeting. The whole of the parties went to the bankers, advertised in a body, and gave notice to them not to pay any money that should be received by them on account of the said scheme after the meeting in question; and it turned out that a very large sum had been subscribed after that meeting, solely upon the belief, and in consequence of its having been publicly reported that the persons to whom he referred had attended it, and had sanctioned its objects. Now, in what a situation might not their Lordships be placed if such things as this were allowed? He could not pretend to point out what ought to be done; but he would merely say that they ought to protect themselves from being involved in such schemes. By what means he left it to their Lordships to consider. But what he did say was, that the names of the consenting individuals to any future schemes
58
ought to be required to be set forth by a Standing Order as having given such consent. He should take an early opportunity of presenting a Standing Order for the purpose of effecting what he had pointed out as necessary.
Lord Broughamwas sure that the public would be much obliged to his noble Friend for adverting to this class of cases. The difficulty would be how to afford a remedy in the particular instance. He would willingly have concurred in passing an Act in order to relieve a person in the situation described by the noble Marquess, but that in so doing there arose a difficulty which was to him insuperable; namely, that the House, having originally passed a Bill in a negligent and careless manner, could not, by any subsequent Act, reach the cheat who had beguiled them; but any such measure would only affect an industrious and honest person who might have lent his money on the strength of their Lordships' legislation. The man who sued the hon. Gentleman whose situation was described by the noble Marquess, might be, and probably was, as bonâ fide a sufferer as that honourable person himself was; and, consequently, what would relieve the one, would oppress the other. He thought, if the Houses of Legislature passed Acts so thoughtlessly, they ought each to pay their respective portions of the pecuniary losses which they inflicted thereby. This showed the caution that was necessary to be exercised by their Lordships in passing Railway Bills; and the immense consequences that might be involved by their not repressing rather than facilitating this gambling disease under which the country laboured. It was the greatest mistake to suppose that these undertakings were bonâ fide on the part of those who put them forward. All that those parties sought, was to give them an appearance of outward semblance of a bonâ fide railway project, in order that they might go and job in the railway market; and Parliament, from a very honest and conscientious feeling, wishing to give every facility possible, omitted to take any pains to inquire into the real merits of the scheme. Had they done so in the present case, they would have found that Mr. Berkeley had not given his sanction to this measure. Every day showed the ruinous consequences to which this gambling system inevitably tended. Men could not

59
do two opposite things at once. They could not employ their capital in gambling speculations, and at the same time employ it in the legitimate course of trade. Look at your Returns of the Revenue this quarter Within the last two or three months they would find a very great falling off in the amount of revenue derived from the Customs and Excise.
Lord Stanley: That is in consequence of the great reduction of duties. The quantities consumed are increased.
Lord Broughamwas not aware that the reductions to which the noble Lord alluded had taken place. He was very glad to find that the deficiency in the revenue had not arisen from a falling off of the consumption of customs and excise articles. His observations were, however, intended to apply to the frauds practised by speculators in railways, who, as one mode of warding off opposition to their schemes, would undertake to insert clauses in their Bills which they never did insert. The whole matter was an evil which demanded their Lordships' serious consideration.
The Marquess of Lansdowneexplained. He had omitted to state, which he now did distinctly, that the hon. Gentleman to whose case he alluded, had no knowledge of the Bill subsequently to the application made to him; and he did not know that it was passing through Parliament until it had received the Royal Assent.
Earl Fitzhardingesaid, he had been informed by his brother (Mr. Berkeley) that when this Committee was first conceived, a proposal was made to him to join in it. After consideration he declined, and from that time he had no interference with it; he never attended any meeting of its concoctors, and knew nothing of it until he was sued by a party, who was a shipbuilder, for an amount exceeding 35,000 l. To show the hardship of his brother's case, he was informed that the expenses already incurred amounted to 400 l., let the case turn out as it might.

BRAZIL SLAVE TRADE BILL.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that in moving the Second Reading of the Brazil Slave Trade Bill, he would endeavour to explain as briefly as possible, the reasons why Her Majesty's Government had thought it necessary to introduce that measure to their
60
Lordships. Their Lordships were aware that a Treaty was concluded between this country and Brazil, in the year 1826, for the abolition of the Slave Trade. By the First Article of that Treaty, the contracting parties stipulated that—
"At the expiration of three years, to be reckoned from the exchange of the ratifications of the present Treaty, it shall not be lawful for the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil to be concerned in the carrying on of the African Slave Trade, under any pretext or in any manner whatever; and the carrying on of such trade after that period by any person, subject of his Imperial Majesty, shall be deemed and treated as piracy."
By the Second and Third Articles of the Treaty, the contracting parties mutually agreed, with a view to provide for the regulation of the said trade, till the time of its final abolition—
"To adopt and renew, as effectually as if the same were inserted, the several Articles and provisions of the Treaties concluded between His Britannic Majesty and the King of Portugal on this subject, on the 22nd of January, 1815, and on the 28th of July, 1817, and the several explanatory Articles which had been added thereto."
The last Treaty with Portugal, in the year 1817, contained a provision from which it appeared that the contracting parties contemplated the possible termination of that Convention. By a separate Article, it was agreed that as soon as the total abolition of the Slave Trade on the part of the subjects of the Crown of Portugal should have taken place, the two parties would adapt themselves to the state of circumstances contemplated by the stipulations of the Convention concluded on the 28th July, 1817; but in default of any such regulation, then the conditions of the said Convention should continue in force for fifteen years from the day when the ratifications of the Treaty should take place. The ratifications were exchanged between Brazil and this country on the 13th March, 1827; consequently in three years after that period, the Slave Trade was finally abolished in the Empire of Brazil. Fifteen years from that period had now elapsed; and the Government of Brazil, on the 12th of March last, gave notice to Her Majesty's Minister at Brazil, that on the following day, the Treaty between this country and Brazil would expire, and that the Mixed Commission, and all the instructions connected with it, would be at an end. It might admit of some doubt how far the contingency contemplated by the separate Article had ar-

61
rived, to entitle the Brazilian Government to put an end to the Treaty. But in a correspondence between Her Majesty's late Government and the Government of Brazil, it appeared that there had been an anticipation of the probability of terminating the provisions within the time specified; and the present Government were, on the whole, disposed to acquiesce in the interpretation put upon the Convention by the Brazilian Government. This country was therefore reduced to the First Article of the Treaty, by which the contracting parties declared that slave trading by any subject of the Brazils should be deemed piracy. That declaration could not, of course, render the Slave Trade piracy by the law of nations; but as between Great Britain and Brazil it became illegal by virtue of that compact. If any State constituted an act illegal or criminal by its own municipal laws, other States were undoubtedly not accustomed to take notice of such act, nor would their tribunals enforce their municipal law; but an act made illegal by virtue of a mutual compact, gave a right to the State entering into such compact to consider the act illegal, and, in consequence, Her Majesty had, by the stipulation in question, acquired the right to order the seizure of all Brazilian subjects found on the high seas engaged in the Slave Trade, of punishing the parties so engaged, and of disposing of their vessels and the goods therein as bona piratorum. When the Act 7th and 8th George IV. was passed, carrying into execution this Convention, care was taken to restrict the power of the Courts of Admiralty and other courts, except the Courts of Mixed Commission appointed for the purpose of carrying the Treaty into effect. Those Mixed Courts had ceased, in consequence of the decision of the Brazilian Government, and it had now become necessary to renew the provisions of the Act of George IV., giving power of exercising jurisdiction in cases of capture. It had been, in effect, necessary to exclude the Courts of Admiralty, because otherwise they might have been called upon, and indeed it would have been necessary for them to exercise jurisdiction under the Convention; but by repealing that part of the Act which prohibited the Courts of Admiralty from taking cognizance of such matters, they would be enabled to exercise this jurisdiction as before. It appeared that the Brazilian Government itself had contemplated this act on the part of the British Government.
62
Shortly after the conclusion of the Treaty, and when he (Lord Aberdeen) held the same office he had now the honour to fill, the Brazilian Minister made application to him that vessels should be permitted to come from the coast of Africa, having sailed before the 13th of March, 1830, without being liable to be detained and treated as pirates, notwithstanding they were met with on the high seas after the 13th of March. In that request Her Majesty's Government acquiesced, and vessels which had sailed from the African coast before that date were not detained. Again, the Brazilian Minister, after three years had elapsed from the signature of the Treaty, and the trade had been finally abolished, maintained that the Courts of Mixed Commission ought to cease, as they only provided for acts done in that trade during the time of its continuance. The Brazilian Government accordingly remonstrated against these courts, and desired that they should cease on the 13th of March, 1830. This application was made to him (the Earl of Aberdeen), but was answered by the noble Lord who succeeded him in office; and he demurred to the abolition of the Courts of Mixed Commission, giving as a reason, that some considerable time must elapse before tribunals could be constituted for exercising jurisdiction in cases of piracy; and therefore he recommended that the Courts of Mixed Commission should continue. The Brazilian Government still seriously remonstrated against the continuance of these courts, declaring that they were of only a temporary character, instituted with a view of judging of the legality of the detention of vessels engaged in the Slave Trade; but that then (in 1830), as all traffic in slaves had ceased, the tribunals for taking cognizance of acts done in that trade, could not possibly be required for an object which was no longer in existence. The Brazilian Government, therefore, urged that these courts should cease. The British Government of that day, however, remarked that these courts might still have duties to perform, notwithstanding that the Slave Trade had become illegal, and had been declared piracy, and maintained the point that the courts should be allowed to continue. It appeared, then, that the abolition of the Mixed Commission Courts was looked upon as possible in a period of fifteen years, according to the terms specified in the Treaty with Portugal. The object of the present Bill was to remove from the Courts of

63
Admiralty the restrictions thrown upon them by the 7th and 8th George IV. passed for carrying into execution the Treaty with Brazil. It was only recently that he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had himself called the attention of the Brazilian Government to the necessity under which Her Majesty's Government might find themselves of appealing to the First Article of the Treaty as he had described it. Their Lordships were aware that the Brazilian Government had always declined to fulfil their general engagements to co-operate with the British Government for the effectual abolition of the Slave Trade. In a note which he addressed to that Government in July, 1843, after strongly remonstrating with them, he declared that the time had arrived when it became Her Majesty's Government distinctly to declare that if the abolition which had been contracted for by the Convention should fail for want of that co-operation so continually asked for by the British at the hands of the Brazilian Government, and if the latter still declined to enter into arrangements to give effect to that Convention, it would remain for Her Majesty alone, and by Her own means, to carry into full effect the abolition imposed upon Her by the First Article of the Treaty. It had, therefore, in consequence of the Courts of Mixed Commission being put an end to, been found necessary to repeal that part of the Act which prohibited the Courts of Admiralty from taking cognizance of these cases. He did not know that it was necessary for him to allude to the course pursued since the conclusion of the Treaty by the Brazilian Government generally. With rare and short exceptions the Treaty had been by them systematically violated from the period of its conclusion to the present time. Cargoes of slaves had been landed in open day in the streets of the capita], and bought and sold like cattle, without any obstacle whatsoever being imposed upon the traffic. Our officers had been waylaid, maltreated, and even assassinated while in the execution of their duty; and justice, in such cases, if not actually denied, had never been fairly granted. No doubt much had happened in the course of the last ten or twelve years, which would have justified, and almost called for, an expression of national resentment; but Her Majesty's Government had no wish save to provide for the effectual execution of the Treaty as stipulated for by the First Article; and with that view he had brought forward
64
the present Bill, which had been approved of by the highest authorities in such matters, and he now moved their Lordships to give it a second reading.
Bill read 2a.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Lord Broughammoved the Second Reading of the Administration of Criminal Justice Bill. His noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, and all their Lordships, were aware of the great inconvenience which arose in the trial of prisoners in different counties, in consequence of the provision of the law which required that all prisoners should be tried in the same part of the country in which the offences they were charged with had been committed. Now, it had occurred to learned persons who had considered the subject, that if certain towns were fixed upon as assize towns, to be declared by the Queen in Council, and the prisoners in each of the counties within a certain ambit were taken to be tried in those towns, the same Judge could deliver them out of gaol. The only objection he had heard urged against the proposal was, that it would be hard for prisoners to be obliged to bring their witnesses from a distance. But the treasurer of the county might be required, on receiving the certificate of the Judge, to pay the expense of conveying the witnesses of prisoners. If this measure was not adopted, more Judges must be appointed, as the present number could not deliver the gaols, and no mortal man could go four circuits in the year. Could anything be more ridiculously absurd, than that those who had committed offences within the ambit of the Central Criminal Court should not be kept in prison before trial longer than eight or ten days, whilst those who had committed the same offences, or much lighter, in Hertfordshire, or Berks, or Surrey, should be kept eight months in prison?—and they might be innocent all the while, or, if guilty, their offence might be punishable with only six months' imprisonment. There was only one of two courses to be adopted—either to pass the Bill with such alterations as might be suggested, or to appoint a greater number of Judges, to which there was always this objection—it would not be easy to devise means of employing the additional Judges during the rest of the year, after the circuits were over. He considered that, by

65
two additional Judges, an improvement might be made in the mode of doing chamber business, which was now done in a way highly unsatisfactory to the suitor. The two Judges might sit permanently in a court, with the check and advice of a Bar. A single Judge now in chambers hardly could be said to have full possession of his faculties, during the hurry and heat of a mob of attorneys' clerks. He wished that chamber practice were brought more into public, and if the number of Judges were increased, one objection, as to the want of employment for them in some parts of the year, might thereby be obviated.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that one objection to the Bill was the increase it would cause to the county rates. Why, he would ask, were the charges required for the purposes of the Bill to be imposed on the county rates, and not to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund? He liked his noble and learned Friend's latter proposition much better.
Lord Campbellwas very far from being adverse to the principle of his noble and learned Friend's Bill. He was ready to agree that it might be found expedient to consolidate counties, and work on the principle of the Central Criminal Court Bill, which had been found most beneficial in its operation. He would, however, advise his noble and learned Friend to postpone the Bill for the present Session, because he doubted whether, as it now stood, it would work at all, and whether is could be framed during the present Session so as to be carried into effect. There were many parts of the present Bill—the apportionment of the expenses, the places whence the jury were to be summoned, and where the prisoner was to be tried, how the judgment was to be carried into execution—which would require the most careful consideration. He should say that the consolidation should be carried into effect rather by Act of Parliamnet than by the Sovereign in Council. If a power of removing the prisoner from one county to another for trial were to be granted, it was not difficult to see that it might prove one of a very dangerous nature in many cases, as, for instance, in Ireland, if a prisoner were removed from Cork to Monaghan; it would be well, therefore, that the boundaries of the districts to be created should be defined by Act of Parliament. He would suggest that another
66
Commission should be issued by the Crown, to consider the whole subject, and, as part of it, the distribution of England and Ireland into circuits, and the division of the year between term and vacation. What he (Lord Campbell) anxiously desired was, that there should be a joint consideration of what should be done in England, and what should be done in Ireland. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would find no difficulty in selecting a number of Irish Judges and barristers to join with English Judges and barristers for this purpose. He had on a former occasion ventured to suggest to their Lordships, that most important measure which, in his humble opinion, would do more to consolidate the Union than anything that had been done since the Act of Parliament passed—that was, as his noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond) remarked, in a loud whisper (he hoped it was heard all over the House, for it would not increase the county rates)—that there should be an interchange of Judges between England and Ireland. The law was the same in both countries; there was not the smallest doubt that the Irish Judges were as learned and as competent in all respects as the English to administer the law, and the people of England would be perfectly satisfied with their decisions. The English Judges, again, going into Ireland, and carrying the authority that belonged to them, he believed that their decisions would be received without suspicion, and with the most implicit reverence. A great deal had been said about additional Judges. There were two spare Judges in Ireland, who might be brought over, and sent a circuit. In Ireland there were now six circuits, several of them so short that they might be got over in three weeks. The Irish circuits, therefore, might be consolidated, and reduced to five, so that ten Judges would be quite sufficient for the administration of justice in that country, and two spare Judges would be left, who might have an English circuit assigned to them. A joint Commission would examine this point among others, and see what could be effected by the whole of the judicial staff both in England and Ireland. He (Lord Campbell) had it from undoubted authority, that that most enlightened statesman and devoted friend of Ireland, the Marquess Wellesley, had a long-deliberated plan for the purpose of amalgamating the law, and

67
having Irishmen appointed to judicial situations in England, and Englishmen to judicial situations in Ireland. He knew from undoubted authority that that plan had occupied much of his thoughts, and that he was of opinion that it would be practicable and beneficial. If a Joint Commission of English and Irish lawyers, and intelligent country gentlemen, were appointed, he was sure the greatest benefit would be derived from their labours. The Bill was at present in an imperfect and crude state; to carry it into effect would be very difficult; the better plan would be, not to press it in the meantime, and for Government to issue such a Commission as he had suggested. With respect to the Commission lately issued to determine the circuits, it turned out that their powers were much more limited than was desirable with a view to their utility. He understood that they had consulted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, though it might have been supposed that they would act on their own view of their powers; and Sir James Graham then intimated to them that they had no power to do more than they had done. They laid all the blame at his door; but, however that was, it was agreed on all hands that the Commission had been a miscarriage. The Report was universally condemned. It could not be acted upon, and the right course would be to issue another Commission, with extensive powers, applying to Ireland as well as England; from which he thought the most beneficial consequences might be expected.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, with regard to the suggestion of an interchange of Judges between England and Ireland, with which they had been favoured by his noble and learned Friend, perhaps he meant that it should also extend to an exchange of Chancellors, the judicial force of one country being substituted for the other, somewhat in the manner an exchange of militia was effected. It was a matter which would require a great deal of inquiry, examination, and reflection, before they acceded to that part of his noble and learned Friend's proposition. He was ready to admit that the Irish Judges were individuals who possessed a great knowledge of law, and who were in no respect inferior to those of this country; yet their acquaintance with the habits and manners of the persons to whom they
68
were to administer justice was a very important consideration. He agreed in that part of his noble and learned Friend's observations which referred to the Report of the Commissioners. He was bound to say, that he thought it an unsatisfactory document. He was not exactly acquainted with the circumstances of their reference to the right hon. Gentleman to whom his noble and learned Friend had alluded. Upon some points he (the Lord Chancellor) would have thought that they might more naturally have referred to himself; but having limited their inquiries within the narrow definition given to their powers, the result undoubtedly was, that their Report was entirely unsatisfactory. He might state, therefore, that he had felt it his duty to advise Her Majesty to issue a new Commission, with fresh and extensive powers, for the purpose of reporting on the ten questions which had been submitted for the opinion of those learned Commissioners, and also on others of very great magnitude connected with them, including the subjects brought under their Lordships' notice by this very Bill. With respect to the present measure, he did not see how it would satisfactorily meet the object which his noble and learned Friend had in view. Instead of going to four or five counties in succession to hold the assizes, the Judges were to assemble in one particular county, and the prisoners were to be brought from the surrounding counties to that central point. He did not know that the time now occupied by the Judges in travelling was very important; but the only time saved by the new arrangement would be that occupied in going from the one county to the other. He had always thought it better that the Judges should go to different districts in succession, than that the jurors, witnesses, prisoners, and all other persons obliged to attend the courts, should be brought from several counties round to one central point. The Bill did not provide as to the mode of summoning the juries, nor from what quarters they were to come, nor how they were to manage with respect to grand juries. Another point, of which they should not omit the consideration, was, how the prisoners on trial were to procure the attendance of their witnesses. It was a matter of very great importance to a man, generally a very poor man, on trial, perhaps, for his life. It would be

69
no satisfaction to them were the Bill to provide that they should have their expenses reimbursed, for they had not the means of advancing the money in the first instance; and the consequence would be, that these persons would find themselves at a distance from those acquainted with the circumstances of the case, helpless, and without defence or resources. He would suggest to his noble and learned Friend, that the best course would be to let the Bill stand over for further consideration, in order to see whether the Government could meet the difficulties to which his noble and learned Friend had adverted.
Lord Denmanfeared their Lordships would have a long time to wait if they wailed till the Commission made a satisfactory Report on all the subjects to which their attention would be called, and more particularly if they included the proposal of any interchange of circuits between Ireland and England. With respect to that proposal of his noble and learned Friend, if the Government should think it right to call upon the Irish Judges to assist those of England in the performance of their duties, he was sure that no persons would receive a heartier welcome. But he thought that this Bill gave an opportunity of doing that with effect; and if they waited to see the Report of the Commission, no man could tell how few of their Lordships might live to see it. He entirely approved of his noble and learned Friend's measure: there was only one respect in which he would wish to see it amended, by following the example set in a Bill also introduced by his noble and learned Friend—that most useful and expedient measure, the Central Criminal Court Bill—and by giving power to form convenient districts for the trial of offences. That Bill offered a complete model by which this might be done in any part of England, and the machinery might fitly be borrowed, since it was capable of being brought into practice at the earliest possible period. He thought his noble and learned Friend, in preparing his Bill, made out a case which must find its way to every man's conviction. The time of imprisonment before trial, was already too long; it ought not to be extended in any case. In his opinion, even four months might be too long; and that not merely with a view to the feelings of the prisoners. Nothing could be more inconvenient
70
than to bring up a man for trial, and have him acquitted by the jury, from a misplaced feeling, no doubt, but still a very natural one, in consequence of his having been so long in prison, or have him sentenced to a shorter term of imprisonment than he would otherwise have received. His opinion was, that there ought to be very frequent deliveries of jails, but that there ought not to be a third circuit. In his opinion a third winter circuit, established as a regular part of the machinery of justice in the country, would be a most enormous evil. He quite agreed that it was much more reasonable that Judges should travel, than jurors, witnesses and others connected with the administration of justice. But deliveries of jails, beyond those now provided by the regular course of procedure, ought, in his view, to be occasional, and regulated by a regard to the pressure of the particular circumstances. Suppose there was an absolute necessity, from the state of the country, for sending a Commission to deliver the jails in the county of Leicester, there might be persons from Derby, Nottingham, Lincolnshire even, who were to be tried at the same time. Would it not be an immense convenience for all parties that a Central Criminal Court should dispose of that business? This travelling of Judges was not worth thinking of; but if the Commission had to be opened at several places, a great deal of time was occupied at each, and the witnesses generally came very much farther than they would have to do under the system he recommended. The last winter circuit, was, he believed, appointed with very little consideration by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and after very little consultation with the Judges. The effect was, to put a stop to some of the most important business of the country going on in Westminster Hall; the Courts of Error were obliged to suspend their business. The Court of Queen's Bench had acted on a Bill passed in the year 1838, which enabled them to dispose of their arrears, at that time amounting to considerably upwards of 400 cases. They had gone on for eight years, the Judges giving up their leisure for the purpose of getting rid of the arrears, and at the end of last year they had brought the list of arrears down to very little more than 100 cases. The whole of that was sacrificed, and the arrears had risen again. This, it

71
could not be denied, was a most serious evil; a great improvement was prevented, and the whole system was deranged by a winter circuit interfering, and taking three of the Judges. If the power of creating new districts were to be given, the Crown might exercise it according to its discretion, and the necessities of the case, in such a way as not to interfere with any important business proceedings; and so far from persons being put to increased expense, he thought a considerable saving would be effected. If their Lordships should be of opinion that the Bill was not at present in such a state that it could be brought satisfactorily into operation, if passed before the expiring of the present Session, then they must hope that the improved state of the country, and, he was very happy to add, the great diminution of crime in every part, might make it less necessary that any particular measure should be adopted. But he (Lord Denman) thought that some further measure ought to be taken, and thus the pressure—not on the Judges, who did not care where they were, provided they were serving the public, since, as they said, they must be somewhere — but on the public interested in the administration of justice, might be prevented. A single instance would show, better than anything, the waste of time and money under the present system. If a man, convicted of stealing a faggot worth one penny, in a parish where he was perfectly well known, was taken before a magistrate, and pleaded guilty, expressing his sorrow for what he had done, the result was, that he might be sent eighty or 100 miles, if in the county of York, to the assize town, to take his trial, the whole county being summoned to hear the statement he had made before the magistrate; while, perhaps, in the absolute mockery of justice, he might be acquitted after all, when he had been detained in prison for six months, and the whole county put to enormous expense. Even the quarter sessions might impose the same penalty on him. There ought to be a simpler process for cases of this description, and many minor matters might be suggested, by which a great deal of trouble and expense would be saved.
Lord Broughamsaid, what his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had stated, determined him not to press the Bill beyond a second reading until the issue of the Commission, by which, no
72
doubt, much good would be effected. His noble and learned Friend's (Lord Denman's) opinion seemed to be to have consolidations of the counties, and that, besides the ordinary circuits, occasional Commissions should be sent, according to the exigencies of the case. He (Lord Brougham) was disposed rather in favour of permanent circuits. With respect to the Commission—he did not mean the last one, for that was deceased, and he would say nothing against the dead, it had gone the way of the Railway Board—he hoped it would be altogether a new one, for he did not like to see learned Judges employed on a Commission, and thought it much better that they should be employed in the administration of the law. As to the question of the circuits, he was decidedly against employing practising barristers who went the circuits; for he found by late Reports that all the practising barristers had voted one way, naturally enough voting according to their predilections and conscientious opinions; but he would take persons who would not have to decide upon matters affecting their own business. There could be no difficulty whatever in appointing other professional men on the Commission, not connected with the administration of justice in those districts with respect to which the questions arose. He concurred with all that had been said in praise of the manner in which the Irish Judges discharged their duties; and he must add, that what came under his own cognizance of their proceedings, confirmed his opinion as to their eminent ability. The only objection to their coming in aid of the English Judges, and the latter being occasionally transferred to Ireland, was the great apprehension with which any one must undertake the trial of a cause, when he was unacquainted with the habits, manners, and character of the people amongst whom it arose. If the Irish Judges did come, he agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Denman) that these virtuous, able men, would meet with a hearty welcome. As to the disposal of the arrear, he must say that he was not satisfied with the account given by his noble Friend (Lord Denman), of 700 cases being cleared off in seven years.
Lord Denman: But all the other business was performed at, the same time.
Lord Brougham: Well, this was very creditable to the Judges of the Queen's Bench: but he though the real rem-

73
edy for the evil of an excessive arrear would be the addition of two Judges. He hoped the Committee about to be appointed would turn its attention to this point, as well as to another which was really as absurd as the old notion of the choice of the jury from the vicinage—he meant depriving the plaintiff of the choice of his court. Why should not the plaintiff and defendant be exactly on the same footing in this respect, particularly as the nominal plaintiff was very often the real defendant, as in an action by the person in possession for an easement?
Bill read 2a.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL—LORD DENMAN.
Lord Denmanmoved the committal of this Bill.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he agreed with the principle of the Bill; but wished to suggest two Amendments—first, that persons convicted of bestial offences should be whipped as often as the Judge should direct; and also that no imprisonment should last longer than two years. As to the first, he thought that such a punishment might well be inflicted on the men who were generally found to commit such offences, and who were abandoned profligates, lost to all sense of shame. As to the second suggestion, he thought no man ought to be imprisoned for a longer period than two years.
Lord Denmanpromised to consider these suggestions, with the view of inserting them in the Bill on the bringing up of the Report.
Bill committed.
House adjourned.