The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 3.

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before Four.
The Lords' amendments to the Newcastle and Dar-
lington Railway Bill (Brandling Junction) were agreed
to on the motion of Mr. HODSON HINDE.

The Lords' amendments to the Edinburgh and Glas-
gow Railway were agreed to.
The Forth and Clyde Navigation and Union Canal
Bill was read a third time and passed.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

On the motion that the Irish Great Western Railway
Bill be read a third time,
Mr. WARBURTON said he had, on a former occa-
sion, called the attention of the Government to the fact of
the House acting with respect to this measure against the
opinion of the Standing Orders Committee; and the First
Lord of the Treasury had declared that the House
ought to keep a tight rein over this Bill. He had,
however, not perceived that any difference had
been made with respect to this Bill than to others,
the proceedings in which had been regular. He
had reminded the House of these facts, and in so doing
he had only done his duty, and having done that he left
the House to do what they thought proper with the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET was not in the House when
the Bill was proposed for a s-cond reading, or he should
have called the attention of the House to the cir-
cumstances connected with the measure. He thought that
a very bad precedent had been set with respect to this
measure, and one that he hoped the House would not in
future follow.
Mr. LABOUCHERE was in the House when the Bill
was read a second time, but he believed that his worthy
friend who moved it, did it in so modest a manner, that
no Member, with the exception of himself and the
Speaker, knew that it had been read a second time. He
hoped the circumstances that had attended the progress
of this measure would never take place again.
The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. F. FRENCH proposed several clauses, which after
some short discussion, were referred to the Standing Or-
der Committee, and the further proceedings on the Bill
were postponed till to-morrow.

The Bermondsey Improvement Bill was read a third
time and passed.
BRIDGEWATER NAVIGATION AND RAIL-
WAY BILL.

The Lords' amendments to the Bridgwater Navigation
and Railway Bill were agreed to.
WATERFORD AND KILKENNY RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to the Waterford and Kil-
kenny Railway were agreed to.
The Bristol Parochial Rates (No. 2) Bill was reported.
SOUTHAMPTON AND DORCHESTER RAIL-
WAY.

The Lords' amendments to the Southampton and Dor-
chester Railway Bill were agreed to.
LUNACY. _ _

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Capt.
Digby, of the Royal Navy, complaining of being forcibly
taken out of his house, and taken to a lunatic asylum,
where he was deprived of all communication with his
friends, and kept in confinement sixteen weeks. The
petitioner prayed that, before the Lunacy Bill passed,
a Committee might be appointed to inquire into the man-
ner in which persons were used that were charged with
being lunatics. The Hon. Member presented several
other petitions from different individuals to the same
effect. [The petitions were ordered to be printed with
the votes, the Hon. Member giving notice of his intention
to found a motion upon them.] The Hon. Member also
presented a petition from Dundee, complaining of the new
Poor-law Bill for Scotland, and especially that no provi-
sion had been made in it for the able-bodied poor ;
a petition from Edinburgh, which prayed also that a
clause might be added to the Bill, declaring that the able-
bodied poor in Scotland were as much entitled to relief
as in England ; a similar petition from Aberdeen,
MONEY GRANTS TO DISSENTERS.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from 320 Baptist
congregations assembled in Leicester on the 27th June,
praying the House to withhold from Dissenting congre-
gations the Parliamentary grant, better known as the
Regium Donum ; also a petition from a gentleman in
Cheshire, complaining that his servant, who had been
ordered to set traps to catch rabbits, was fined 10/. on
the prosecution of the Rev. James Mannering. He
prayed the House that some alteration might be made
in the game-laws, in so far as private property was
concerned.
MEDICAL BILL—SHORT TIME BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from the
practitioners of London in favour of the Medical Prac-
titioners Bill ; also a petition from the wool-combers of
Bradford, in favour of a short time Bill.
SPIRIT TRADE IN IRELAND.

Mr. ARK WRIGHT presented a petition from whole-
sale spirit merchants in Ireland, praying for such a
modification of the law as would put them on the same
footing with the trade in England.
FLOUR AND BISCUIT ACT.

In answer to a question from Mr. HUTT, as to whe-
ther a new Flour and Biscuit Act would be introduced
this session, before the present one should have expired,
Sir G. C LERK said it would be his duty in the pre-
sent session to introduce such a Bill.
___ _

SPANISH COLONIAL SUGAR.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to put a question to the
First Lord of the Treasury relative to a dispatch of Lord
Aberdeen, on the subject of the admission of Spanish
colonial sugar into this country.
Sir R. PEEL, having had no notice of the question,
was not at that moment prepared to reply to it.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. DIVETT then rose, and said that he had to in-
troduce to the attention of the House a matter which was
considered in the highest degree difficult oven by the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite, who more than once had
stated that great caution was necessary in its consideration,
and as such it was with extreme reluctance that he was
now compelled to bring the subject before the House.
The petition of his honourable friend Mr. Jasper Parrot
had been ordered to be printed, and he trusted that the
House, after due deliberation, would come to the conclu-
sion that the parties commencing this action had been
guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House.
He considered that it was an essential point tnat the
House should take care that an individual should not be
immeasurably harassed by proceedings of this kind.
His friend had been summoned by the Noble Lord (Lord
Ashley) to give evidence before the Committee on the
Medical (Poor) Relief Bill, and he did there give evi-
dence as he (Mr. Divett) believed in a satisfactory and
truthful manner. Before he stated more on the subject
he should refer to a precedent which was ex-
actly similar. The case occurred in the year
1696, and he would now read it to the Rouse.
The Hon. Member then read the minutes of the pro-
ceedings to which he had referred, and said that the case
he had read furnished a clear precedent for the course
he called upon the House to take. Mr. Parrot now
came before them by petition, and claimed their pro-
tection. He (Mr. Divett) was fully aware of all the
difficulties that would surround the course he advised;
but the time had come when it was necessary
to vindicate the powers and privileges of the House.
There was no use blinking the matter any longer.
In this case it was necessary, in the first place,
to protect the person of the party who had given evi-
dence before that House, and, in the second place, to
take such measures as would secure their privileges
against future proceedings of this nature. He would
not go further into the subject at present, but move that
the party who had brought this action, with the agents
and lawyers in the case, be summoned to attend at the
bar of the House to-morrow.

Mr.WYNN, who spoke sitting, and also was very in-
distinctly heard in the gallery, said, that he could not
but be astonished, after all that had taken place, per-
sons should be found desirous of trying the ex-
periment, how far they might go in committing acts in
contempt of that House.—(Hear, hear.) He thought,
however, that before they proceeded any further, it
would be well to ascertain the truth of the facts
stated in the petition. He had not the slight-
est doubt as to the respectability of the peti-
tioner ; but it would be necessary to prove
that the words which had been complained of;
had been spoken by a witness as evidence before a.
Committee of the House of Commons. The House had
two courses open to them to pursue, namely, either to
take the matter up immediately as a breach of the pri-
vileges of that House, or to allow it to proceed. It
would be a perfectly good answer to the action for the de -
fendant to plead that he had spoken the words complained
of as evidence given before the House of Commons. The
House might commit the plaintiff at once, but that course
would be attended with inconvenience, as the parties re-
sided in the country. If this were not the case, he did
not think there would be any objection to the motion of
the Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DIVETT said the agents of the parties resided
in London, and could attend the House to-morrow. The
reason he had asked the House to proceed in this matter
at once was, that Mr• Parrot was obliged to plead to the
action to-morrow.

Sir R. PEEL said that the facts of the case appeared
to him these :—A gentleman had been called upon to give
evidence as to the medical treatment of the poor. He
had been compelled, by a warrant issued from the
Speaker, to appear at the bar of the House, to give evi-
dence as to the medical management of the poor. He
appeared, and he (Sir R. Peel) had every reason to
believe he gave his evidence with perfect consistency.
In consequence of the evidence so given that gentleman
had been threatened with an action, and the result of
that action was that Mr. Parrott had thrown himself on
the House for protection, pleading, at the same time,
that the evidence he had given was in accordance with
the exercise of his duty to that. House. If those were
the circumstances of the case, he could not conceive any
stronger claim far protection. He thought that, so far
as Mr. Parrott was concerned, he had every claim in jus-
tice and equity to protection. He (Sir R.
.Peel) cer-
tainly could not conceive a greater encroachment on
the privileges of the House than the case that had been
brought before them. He considered that delay in such
cases was dangerous. In the late case of Howard he
had expressed his doubts as to the policy of the plan
that was then pursued ; but he thought they
were now united as to the consideration of
the method to be followed.—(Hear.) He was
not to be deterred from taking that course which he con-
sidered best.—(Hear.) It was necessary to have the
principal before the House as well as the attorney.—
(Hear, hear.) It was necessary to have him before them
to state whether the charge was true as stated—to ex-
plain whether certain words were spoken or not. The
best course would be to call on Mr. Phillips to appear at
the bar of the House, and ascertain from his own lips
the statement that had been promulgated. The Hon.
Gentleman opposite had said that Mr. Parrott was to
appear in court to-morrow, He should not like at
present to give any decision on that matter until more
opportunity had been given for further inquiry.
Mr. DIVETT observed that by applying to a judge
Mr. Parrot might obtain further time to plead.
Sir G. GREY said, the best way would be for Mr.
Parrot to appear at the bar of the House with his at-
torney, so that the House might be put in a position of
knowing what had actually occurred.
Mr. WARBURTON quite agreed that the first per-
son who should be called bethre the House was Mr.
Parrott, in order that he might substantiate his de-
claration. In his petition he had stated, that never,
rpdusblsioshoettrtehd
upon any occasion, except that of giving his evidence
e
wbefore
otihl es
rCg
oodm
amgiat
itoe es
t, hadhim h eFosprothkeesneowr
he claimed their protection.—(Hear.) Everybody
who knew Mr. Parrot must be glad to find that
he came forward—though not voluntarily—to defend
the Poor-law Commissioners. He was the representative
of the board of guardians when he gave this evidence re-
specting Mr. Phillips. He understood that Mr. Parrot's
attorney was in waiting, and he thought that they ought
to hear his evidence.

Mr. DIVETT moved that Augustus Henri• Moore be
called to the bar of the House.
The motion having been agreed to,
The SPEAKER ordered him to be called to the bar
forthwith, whereupon the Sergeant-at-Arms ushered
him in.

Augustus Henry Moore, in answer to questions put
by the Speaker, stated :—I am attorney for Jasper
Parrott, and produce a copy of a declaration served
on that gentleman upon the 261 h of June. I did not
make that copy myself, but my clerk did, and I have
no doubt that it it a correct copy of the declaration.
The instrument bore date of the 26th of June, and the
copy was made in my office, but not in my presence.
It was made about six o'clock in the cvning, after I
had left for dinner.
Mr. DIVETT—How much further time can you have
to plead ? Answer—Four or five days.
Mr. DIVETT—State by whom was the declaration
filed, and whose signature it bore ? Answer—lt was
served in the name of Kettle, Baker, and Grant, of 34,
Lyon-street, for Edwards and Fry, solicitors, of Totnes.
Mr. J. WORTLEY—Had you received any commu-
nication prior to the service of the declaration ?
Answer—None, whatever.
Mr. J. WORTLEY—Nor any overtures to effect a
compromise, and offer reparation ? Answer—None.
Mr. MOORE was then ordered to withdraw, and QA
his departure