The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-31 00:00:00

NOTICE OF MOTION—ACADEAIICAL INSTITU-
TIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord J. MANNERS gave notice that on the motion for the
second reading of the Academical Institutions (Leland) Bill,
he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months.
A RRESTAIENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for leave to thing in a Bill
to amend the law for the arrestment of wages in Scotland.—
Agreed to.
Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from Manchester
and Salford in favour of a
NEW Ten Hours' Fa
ZEALAND.ctory Bill.
Mr. G. H. HOPE said he was desirous of calling the atten-
tion of the House to a statemgpt which he made on the 2d of
May, in reference to the cireffiistances under which a notice
of motion made by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Liskeard (Mr. C. Bullet), was postponed. The postpone-
ment was made by the Hon. Gentleman himself, and not
at the request of her Majesty's Government, neither was it
the result of any compromise between the Noble Lord at the
bead of the Colonial Department and the New Zealand Com-
pany. A retort of that Company had been pub-
lished, from which different inferences had bees% drawn.
He would state in a few words what occurred.
On the let of May, having postponed his motion in
consequence of some communication with Lord Stanley, he
postponed the motion to which he had alluded, but
which, as he had stated, was not the result of
any compromise whatever. In order that no mistake
might arise, he would read the letter which had
been sent by the Noble Lord to the Honourable Gentleman.
The Hon. Member then read the letter addressed to the Hon.
Member for Liskeard, requesting to know the reason why he
postponed his motion, and whether it arose from a previous
arrangement. To that letter he had returned an answer that
no arrangement had been entered into by the Honourable
and Learned Member. After this, he would leave it to
the House to decide whether they (the Ministry) were justi-
fied or not in these proceedings.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER, who was throughout very
imperfectly heard, so much so, that many Hon. Members
repeatedly called out, " Speak out, speak out," was under-
steed to say, that it was due to the Right Hon. Baronet op-
posite, and to Lord Stanley, that he should make some ex-
planation respecting the correspondence which had passed
between himself and the Government, and the circumstances
which had been alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, in regard
to the withdrawal of the motion which he was sorry to say
had been attributed to circumstances that had no existence.
It was a mistake to say, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
J. Graham) had entered into any compromise with him for
the withdrawal of his motion. What occurred was this. He
had: requested the Right Hon. Baronet to admit of a negotia-
tion on the part of the Directors. The Right Hon. Gentleman
said that he would consult Lord Stanley, but that it was im-
possible /or the Government to enter into any negocuttion so
long as his (Mr. Buller's) motion stood upon the paper of the
House. He therefore represented the matter to the Board of
Directors, and they agreed with him that it would be hest to
withdraw the motion, and leave the Government free to enter
into the negotiation. There was no compromise whatever.—
( Hear, hear.) He had thought it his duty to say that there
was no breach of faith on either side.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM must corroborate the statement of his
Honourable arid Learned Friend. But he must also state
his regret that confidential conversation between Members
of that House even though they sat upon opposite sides,
should be allowed to transpire.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The conversations which he had had with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Liskeard were perfectly confidential, and
it was with great surprise he received a letter from the chair-
man of the New Zealand Company, informing him that the
secret committee of the board of directors were possessed of
minutes of the conversations between Mr. C. Buller and him-
self ; that they were about to publish them, and requested him
to corroborate or correct them. Now, as he had taken no
notes of the conversations, he could neither correct nor cor-
roborate those minutes. But the lion. and Learned Member
for Liskeard had so correctly stated what had occurred, he
could nut doubt that the minutes alluded to would be equally
faithful.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the secret committee of the
board of directors had thought it their duty to report the sub-
stance of the conversations to the board. He was glad to hear
the Right Hon. Baronet hear testimony to the sincerity and
high honour of his Hon. and Learned Friend.
GAME-LAWS—THE CASE OF JAMES DEANE.
Mr. HUME wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet a ques-
tion of which he had given notice last night, in respect to the
ca., of James Deane. a man sixty years of age, who was sent
to Reading gaol for four months for stealing pheasants' eggs.
lie wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it was his
intention to lay before the House the documents relating to
the case ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, in consequence of magistrates
having cumulated the punishment by adding one• month's im-
prisonment to the previous sentence of three months' imprison-
ment, he had advised her Majesty to remit the cumulated por-
tion of the sentence.—( fear, hear.)
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that it was exceedingly
wrong for a man to be imprisoned and fined both tor such an
offence as this. It was anything but fair fur the proprietors to
profess a wish to reduce poaching. and then to take tile very
mersures which were likely to increase the evil. There was
melting more monstrous than fur the preservers of game to
become the purchasers of it from the public. In :he case
which had been cited the poor man had been relieved from his
imprisonmen% by the lion. 2.lember for Athlone (Mr. Collett),
wine thought that a double punishment was too much, and
therefore paid the flee him 'elf.
Sir JOHN WALSH said that this man had been con-
victed for this offence without his knowledge, and certainly
without any wish of his. The circumstances, it appeared,
were these :—The offender had offered game for sale ; he be-
lieved they were pheasants and pheasants' eggs, to a young
man, who had onla been about a twelvemonth in his service,
and who, from being unaoquainted with the game-laws, had
asked the other keepers what course he should pursue, and in
consequence of their advice, he had again seen the man, who
was apprehended, taken before the magistrate, and cerivieted.
He (Sir John Walsh); was out . f the country at the time, or he
would certainly have interfered.
Mr. OSBORNE said that a man had been sentenced to one
mouth's imprisonment, but had undergone three months, in
consequence of his inability to pay the fine, and he certainly
thought that the Government ought to inquire into the
matter.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the merits cf the case had not been
brought before him, nor did he go at all with them. It was
quite open to the parties to go into the merits of the case, but
tia•y did not go into them.
Mr. COLLETT said ho hoped he might be excused for now
saying a word or two, as the matter had reference to himself
personally. The daughter-in-law or this poor mar, came to
his house, and made a statement corroborative of that which
appeared in the Times newspaper. Feeling for the poor man,
he sent his servant down to Reading wish the money fur his
liberation. The poor man was obliged to pick oakum, end
had been in solitary confinement. The money was, however,
paid, and the man was set at liberty. The Hen. Member
then read a letter which appeared in the Times newspaper of
that day, and added, that as the payment of the fine had been
ascribed to a person much higher in tank, he thought it but
right to make this statement. He h:d, on that day, written
to the 'limes to the same effect.—( Cheers. )
JERSEY LAW COURTS.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Gentleman relative to an application which had
been made to the Comptroller-General, respecting the con-
duct of the law officers of Jersey. Application was made to
the other law courts, and from them the matter had been re-
ferred to the consideration of the Royal Court, which had de-
termined it was a matter of civil action. It was not a concern
for criminal interference. A secret inquiry, which is peculiar
to the constitution of Jersey, was then instituted, and the
whole of the results of this inquiry were published in the French
language, and it was determined that no punishment should
be awarded. The Hon. Member wanted to know whether any
steps had been taken by the Government to ask for an ex-
planation of the conduct of the law officers of Jersey.
Sir J. GRAHAM replied that the law officers had not yet
had an opportunity of making any defence, and he felt satisfied
the lion. and Learned Gentleman would not press his question
until the officers had been enabled to explain.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Lord 3. RUSSELL wished to know what step the Govern-
ment intended to take with respect to the question of privilege
that had been brought before the House last night. A report
of the Committee had been presented, and it appeared to consist
of two parts. The first was with respect to delaying the exe-
cution on Monday next ; and the second was that the Court
had come to the decision that it was proper to proceed by a writ
of error in the superior Court. With regard to the first part,
that of staying the execution next Monday, the House might
go into the subject ; but with regard to the second part, that
relating to the writ of error, he begged leave to state that it
was the opinion of the Committee that they ought to meet
again and draw up a more detailed report, to be presented to
the House before any discussion took place upon the ques-
tion. It was necessary, before the House went into the sub-
ject, to have the fullest data before them. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Worcester (Sir Thomas Wilde) and the
Right Hon. Member for Devonport (Sir George Grey)
thought this would be the prorr course to pursue.
Sir R. PEEL said, as this was a most important question,
it was desirable, before going into its discussion, that thei
should have the fullest report from the Committee, along witn
the reasons on which their report was founded. Before taking
any other step, such a course, he held, was absolutely necessary.
Sir T. WILDE thought it was desirable to state to the
House that, of the two evils, the taking of the course recom-
mended by the Committee would be infinitely the lesser one.
The allowing the execution to take place next Monday, would
not interfere with the proceedings of the writ of error. The
evil of levying damages, bore no proportion whatever to their
taking a premature step before full and explicit information was
placed before them.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that, if the proposed levy was
allowed to take place, it would prejudice their case when they
went into another Court to have it heard. Ile wanted to know
how any difficulty of this kind was to be got over.
Sir 'l'. WILDE said that the proceedings in the writ of
error would be quite independent of the others pending against
them. The writ would be unaffected by the execution. When
such a course was taken by the House, with the understanding
that it was to try the question in a superior Court, no evil
could arise from it. He was satisfied that no evil could arise
from the execution, if they acted upon the suggestions of the
Committee.
Mr. HUME said that many of their warrants had been is-
sued, but few of them had been carried into effect. The war-
rant ran thus:—
°' According to the Standing Orders of the House, the
House of Commons in Parliament assembled, these are to re-
quire you to take into your custody any party or parties who
may or shall affect, interfere, or molest the person of Sir Wil-
liam Gossett, our Sergeant-at-Arms ; and also all Sheriffs,
Sheriffs' officers, or other persons who may be assisting in the
same. And for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant.
Dated this 3d day of February.
(Signed) "C. SHAW LEFiEVRE, Speaker."
Nov, this was a powerful warrant, and he did not think that
they ought to depart from the position they had assumed. They
might, indeed, waive their own privileges, if they only roost-
tiered themselves, bat they affected the public, and, therefore,
he thought that it was their duty to uphold them. He thought
that they had succumbed sufficiently already. For his part,
he was inclined to propose that the officers of the House
should take into custody all and every person Who
M IELLOWES presented petitions from various places i I should attempt to carry thuitsse.piiiloignment into execution, and
imprison them forthwith. '
finntinedonahire against the proposed alteration in the law -n
the Sees of
°( waiting for further
a-e;:!.. :Dent. Also a petition against the union of
report, and asked informationforfurtherdetabyetobreefothreeythdeeyliltnearda,t,edan,onintho_e
. Member had talked of
Asaph and Ilangor.
ttnbiti:a.:tan,stiTlitohnu,t,swellhoerandt this ilsret.ghlet,te
,steaf4iw,a,acit no
wa
saisiaeri, ye .rh,
he (3I
the
ilueiunrinis-bhe)artp,
unhappy
POST-OFFICE ABUSES.
Mr. T. s. DU :\ ro 111:E pr,- a petition, signed by
person to seize the assassin and assist in conveying
-160 mercisinas of the tity of London. complaining of the
n i t itee in custody until the
exactimi a fees fiy oilivers of the General Post-effiee, llltittt np andshatl kept '
under ttiropieence of an e:lely delivery of letters ; also, ono- olllcers arrived to convey him to saferprivileges kee
or
no t e thought
ping. The question
ouight
he
for a. Committee of
pleinire; of :Le abuses of the :'out-office generally, and pray- was, whether they really had an
jog inceirv. 1:e had already Overt notice of a motion they haul, and that it was high time to
vindicate.
them,
petition !rum an I only wished that his Hen. and Learned Friend would Also, a
iuii ter for the • .
r R. H. INGLIS h the
Sioped that the House would pause
individual, praying for the incloeuro of waste lands
! evay.
benefit of the poor.
TTIMINGHAAI ire they Acted. and get the fall report of the Committee.
BRADFORD, LONDON, AND 13•,
'there were two parts in the report which it was essential to lie
BA Y. oe
ILW
brought under the attention of the House. First, whether the
Thf Bradford, London, and Birmingham Railway Bill w2s
House would follow out their decision and seize the Lord Chief
read a third time, anti vvseel.
MESSAGE FP.Oli THE LORDS.seat of justice.
Messengers from the Lords brought down certain Bins. Justice
2i.,H7113. sAII_,.
INGLIS
sail,
seize him if lie. comes to this House."
MAYNOOTIL Sir e- N.that if the lion. Member waited
^ tested, But thongh" here
Sir INGLIS presented petitions from Dundee and other I till the Chief Justice appeared at that bar of the House his con-
rge was .cat likely to he very s,on
-plates, disapproving of the Maynooth grant.

Justice of England against the attacks of the Learned Lord
behind him, once the Attorney-General of Queen Caroline,
and the Lord Chancellor that supported and promoted him.
The Noble Lord had attacked him because he could not answer
the argumits of his Learned Friend—arguments which, how-
ever they might be disregarded by that House, would obtain
for him from the country still greater admiration than his name
had already attained. But what was the practice now pursued
in the Post-office? They had a false seal, they opened the
letter, they took a copy of it, then closed it again, they
affixed a false seal to it, and thus sent it to its original desti-
nation. This was a custom so abhorrent to all honour and
intagaity, tile every nation but England had renounced it. M.
Guizot hadMeclared that he considered the Post-office sacred,
and that the practice adopted in this country would be a disgrace
to his. If the law remained as it was, an action might be
brught against Sir James Graham by Mr. Duncornbe or Mr.
; a jury might, under the direction of the judge,
return a verdict again the Secretary of State, and the
most enormous &miles returned against him ; and
thus an officer of the Crown, conscientiously discharging the
duties imposed upon him by law, might be punished, not for
any delinquency of his own, but for the defect of the law.
The practice did not exist by statute until the time of Queen
AIaCC, but neither that Act, nor those passed in the subsequent
reigns, gave the power to the Secretary of State—when then
did it exist? He held that it did not exist at all, and he be-
lieved that common law would so decide. The person isuing
the warrant was responsible at law, not the person who
carried it into effect. He admitted that the Secretary of State
had the power of issuing a warrant for the opening of letters in
a house or elsewhere, if they were necessary for the ends of
justice ; but he had no power to cause letters passing through
the Pest-office to be opened. He agreed with
the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench
that the power did not exist. If the power was to continue,
surely some register should be kept of the letters opened.
He hoped their Lordships would accede to the motion, and
assured them that they would carefully examine the measure

in Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the subject had been
nearly exhausted, and there was so much misconception of the
law amongst Noble Lords that he was anxious to say a few
-words concerning it. It was impossible not to entertain the
idea that the law was legal ; and if he could show that it was
sanctioned by law he should be warranted in coming to the
coneluilon that it was a part of the acknowledged law of the
land. The power was exercised in the time of the Common-
wealth, and the reports of the Committees of both Houses of
Parliament bore him out in this view. During that period
the Post-office was leased to a person of the name of Bishop,
and a provision was inserted in the lease reserving the power of
openinge letters to the Secretary of State. Subsequently it
'was leased to a person of the name of O'Neil, and the same
power was retained as in the case of Bishop. In each of these
c es a proclamation was issued, specifying that the Poste
o . had been leased to them, and recognising the
se right. In the time of Charles 11., a person named
ol CN
tan was put on his trial for sedition, and the principal
charges were substintiated by letters which had been inter-
cepted in their progress through the Post-office. He did not
say that he approved either of the trial or the verdict of
the jury. but neither the judge nor the jury considered
!hat that proceedings were illegal. If it had been consi-
dered a violation of the law, was it not likely that it would
have been alluded to on the trial. The evidence on the trial
of Atterburty mainly consisted of letters from the Post-office,
which were proved at the bar of that House. No objection
was made by the prisoner himself, or by any of the learned
individeals at that tame, that the Secretary of State was not
entitled to intercept letters passing through the Post-office,
and to bring them in evidence against a person on his trial.
He would ask if that was not the strongest evidence that the
power was legally exercised at that time by the Secretary of
;Mete. Another material fact, in support of his opinion, was the
care which caused so much sensation at the time, namely, the
openinz of the lets of Members of Parliament by the Master
of the Post-office. A resolution was passed to the effect that
it was a breach of privilege to open any of their letters, except
by a warrant of the Secretary of State. What could be a more
distinct recognition of the power than this, that it was vested
in the Secretary of State for the time being. The case of Hems •
worth a!so substantiated his view of the law. On the trial of
ileirne Tooke a letter from the Post-office was produced .in
eviaa,,,afe Now if that was an infraction of the law would not
those eminent indieidnals Mr. Erskine or Mr. Gibbs, who were
eremite"; far Mr. Tooke, or the judge, or the bench, have taken
lintice of it.? Would they hove suffered such an infractions
when a b'tter was produced in evidence regaiest their client?
He would pass over the Acts cf Queen Anne, George the l st,
and George the 2.d, and would cone down to 15.30. He would
direct the attention of their Lordships to the statement of
the Noble Lord (Denman) in reference to the clause
giving the power of ()police- letters to Government.
The Noble Lord then recognised the legality c.f the power.
Ile a reference to the Acts from Cromwell down to the present
times, and by the courts of justice during the list century. this
power was rot only legal, but never called in question. Why,
those wire) felt aegrieeed by the exercise of this power (Mr.
A13271:11 for instance) did not tea. the legality of it by a resort
to the courts of law. His Noble newt. sedd that it was an
Atiirainable and disgsovefel power. but the effect of the present
'ildi was to legalise that power. With respect to the ineensis-
tenciea of the present Bill, they had been so fully pointed out
Is' a Noble Lord who had preceded him, that it would be an
idle wasste of time to take up the
bir attention any further upon
*eel. and he would coticlude y giving his most strenuous
opyist. ,
- -' 'VII to the present 11111, believing that the power which
it drole away with was one which should be possessed by every
t_i.lvertarnent.
Lord Ith,NMAINT explained in reference to the opinions
vtieb les had expressed in leer;) upon the subject, and which
had beers a} leaf t• by the Noble Lord who had just sit. down as
favzotrableillel the legality of that power. The question of the
le,,sality of the power did not then enter into his consideration.
• He- never referred to it in a factious manner—it was not a
party question. It affected all parties. and he threw the blame
squally on all. felo far from approving of it, he had always
opposed it as most unconstitutional, and the Noble Duke
opposite could bear testimony to the accuracy of what lie
stated. Ge was opposed to tits power on con9titittional
-grounds when he was Attorney-Gencind as he still cote -
,i tned the same opinion as he did, IrrrOuld not do otherwise
than oppose she class power now. Perhaps he had done more
to obtain its abolition when he was in office than any other
Attorney-General would have ventured to do.
After a few words of explanation from Lord Brougham, the
Lord Chancellor, and Lord Campbell.
The rilarq&s of NORMANDY admitted having exercised
the power while he was in otilee. hut declared that he never was
esttrusted with any power uhich gave him more pain. The
question, however, for them now to consider was, net the pro-
priety of abolishing the power, but the particular provisions of
the Noble Earl's Bill. When the question for the abolishing
of t,lie power came'before them, he should he prepared to give
it his best consideration. He confitoeed that, before he came
j2t.t, office. he was ignorant of the existence of this power, but
row, he thought it was known to almost all the world. He
slid not etaree in the provisions of the Bill, but, nevertheless,
he moped Government would take the matter into their serious
eitorsisfderation, and see if something emit! not be done, either to
do stray with the power altogether, or to limit its exercise.
Lord STANLEY briefly explained that the practice of the
liorno-ofnee was to preserve the warrants with every instru-
ment connected with their exercis.e.
Eerl FI IZ WILLIAM, while protesting against the ars
gumeent of the Secretary for the Colonies, who treatel the
subject as a police question, and that of his Noble Friend
Lord Brougham) who regarded it as necessary for the
well-l4ng of the nation, should support the second reading of
the Bilr, although he objected to its framing and preamble.
The Earl of cARNARVON opposed the second reading of
the Bill.
The Earl of RADNOR briefly replied in a few words.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
Contents
Non-contents
Majority against the second reading of the Bill —4l
THE RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL
(SCOTLAND.)
This Bill went through Committee, and the House resumed.
Several Bills were then advanced a stage, and
Their Lordships adjourned at Ten Minutes past Twelve
o'Clock, till Monday.

E S LONDON 2 SA.TITIDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1845.

were, he was aware, many Hon. Members who were ready to I
make speeches, though they were not quite prepared to imi-
tate the gallant bearing of the Hon. Member for Montrose, yet
still he thought that the best decision to come to on the sub-
ject, was to wait for the report of the Committee.
Lord HOWICK thought that the wiser plan would eel,
tainly be to follow the advice of bis Hon. and Learned
Friend, and reserve the discussion until they bad the full report
of the Committee before them. Supposing, as it was stated,
that the levy should be made, and the damages taken, it was
better to allow this, than to take an inconsiderate step. It
would still be in their power to compel the parties who had
received them to refund, and to punish the parties who had
been in any way instrumental in carrying the execution into
effect. This would, in his opinion, be a much better course
than to take any inconsiderate step. They _would then hays
the advantage of waiting for the report of the Standing
Orders Committee, and avoid being committed at present to
any specific motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that it would cer-
tainly be better to postpone the discussion until they got the
full report of the Standing Orders Committee, and they would
then see what would be the better course for them to adopt.
The Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) seemed to
think the the full report of the Committee ought now to be
laid before them ; and doubtless, if they had had the
advantage of that lion. Member's industry, intelligent dili-
gence, and business-habits, it might perhaps have been ready,
but circumstances had occurred that had rendered it impossible.
The members of that Committee had been most indefatigable,
for in the midst of numerous private engagements they had
closely attended to their duties. He should move that when
the order of the day were proposed to be read, that it be post-

poned till Monday next.
After a few words from Sir T. WILDE and Sir R. PEEL,
Mr. HUME said that he should move a resolution to the
effect, that it should be a breach of the privilege of the House
to levy money on any servant of that House executing a war-

rant.
Lord HOWICK trusted that the Hon. Member would

delay his resolution.
Lord JOHN MANNERS hoped that the Hon. Gentleman
would persevere.
Mr. HUME said he was anxious to proceed, and he would
now move that it be a breach of the privileges of the House to
levy any sums of money on any servant of that House executing

vileges which meant, if they meant anything, that the House
should possess an unlimitable and irresponsible power.—( Hear,
hear.) The conclusions and dogmas meant, if they really
meant anything, that all power and authority should be
concentrated in that House. He would ask, was
that the view which they believed to be acceptable to the
peopleof this country? He (Mr. D'lsraeli) would say the people,
but the public was lately the'Parliamentary phrase. He observed
no disposition on the part of the public to take part with the
proceedings of that House on the present question.—( Hear,
hear.) They sympathised with the courts of law, and they
looked upon them as the protectors of their rights and liberties.
—( Hear, hear.) It was a profound sentiment in the mind of
the people to support the law -of England. They had asso-
ciated the law of England with the security and welfare of
public liberty.—(Hear, hear.) The feeling out of doors was
one of satisfaction at the decision of the courts of law, and he
had only risen to repudiate the idea that the people of this
country had any wish to curtail, or war against the just privi-
leges of the House. He exposed the assumption of such pri-
vileges because lie considered them inimical to popular liberty.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would " suppose a corrupt
judge—suppose a corrupt'court presided over by one who had a
dark design against public liberty." The same might be said
respecting the House of Commons, and the real question was,
whether the House of Commons should be invested with a su-
preme irresponsible power, or whether the dignity of the law, as
administered by the judge, should not be respected, upheld,
and supported ?—(1-1 ear.)
Mr. F. KELLY submitted that the only; course for the
House to pursue, was to agree to the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, which he had pro.
posed at the express suggestion of the Hon. Member for Lon-
don. That suggestion was agreed to, and then the Hon.
Member for Montrose proposed his amendment. The Noble
Lord the Member for Sunderland also had an amendment, by
which he sought to postpone the consideration of the question
till next Monday week ; but the question was, should the dis-
cussion also be postponed till the same time. Having briefly
-stated the facts of the Howard v. Gossett case, the 1100. and
Learned Gentleman proceeded to say that it was now their
duty, and one of transcendent importance, to decide what course
should be adopted by the House, by which, on the one hand,
due respect would be manifested for the law, and the Courts
which administered that law ; and, en the other, by which the
undoubted privileges of the House might be maintained. The
question ought not to be prematurely discussed, nor without
careful deliberation. The question had been referred to a
Committee, that Committee had thought it best to consider the
questien fully in all its bearings—that Committee had expressed
an unanimous wish that it was necessarythatthc question should be
postponed, and therefore he considered the House ought to
postpone the discussion till the time proposed. He considered
it was the duty of the House to accede to this request of the
Committee. The discussion could be as well taken next Mon-
day week as to-night. It was necessary that they should ven-
ture upon no course without due deliberation. They should
not act prematurely, but take the proper and reasonable course
suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for London, and
moved by the lion. and Learned Solicitor-General.—( Hear. )
Sir T. WILDE said that he considered the course recom-
mended by the Noble Lord the Member for London the
proper cause to take. On a former occasion, when the ques-
tion of privilege was under their consideration, he bad opposed
the course then taken. Proceedings had been in=tituted against
the officer of that House, and the matter was brought before
the House. A vote was come to, the House agreed to appear
and plead, and the consequences were well known to all the
Hon. Members present. But now the lion. and Learned
Gentleman said, let the execution take place. He regretted
the subject had not received in that House the benefit of the
talents of his Hon. and Learned Friend. His absence had pre-
vented that. He (Sir T. Wilde) might say, that when he
was consulted on that occasion by Mr. France, his Hon. and
Learned Friend took some interest in the question. He ( Sir T.
Wilde) advised Mr. France to petition, and drew up
a petition for the purpose, when his Honourable
and Learned Friend being consulted on this subject advised an
exactly opposite course.—( Hear, hear.) '1 he part he had
taken had been less disinterested than that of his Hon. and
Learned Friend, for he (Mr. Kelly) was the volunteer counsel
of the House of Commons. He trusted that the House weuld
give them each an unbiassed hearing. If he thought his lion.
and Learned Friend could carry his resolution, he would second it
with all his heart, for, in his opinion, it was a very proper re-
solution to be moved ; but when the House was told, that it
was rot competent to proceed, and that it was placed in the
power of the Court of Queen's 13eneli, he could not suppose
that any such power could exist. The answer to his resolu-
tion would be what the Hon. Member for Oxford had stated,
that it would he ridiculous, after the fine had been levi, d, to
talk any snore about it, and his reason for suggesting the post-
ponement was, that it would prevent the exeeution being
stayed, and hinder the alternative of bringing a writ of error.
He admitted it was a sad step to take to levy the execution.
He considered that the present wag the last occasion on which
the question could be discussed with the advantages
it row possessed. If a future great occasion arose
when the House was intercepted in its proper functions it
would cut through all that had been accomplished as the
scythe levels the standing corn. It appeared to him that the
method hitherto pursuedwas highly discreditable to the House.
It was a surrender of the constitutional privileges of the [louse
and with it a yielding up of the great principles of the Consti-
tetion itself--( Hear, hear.) He trusted he should convince
the judgment of every Hon. Member that the decision of the
Court of Queen's Bench was false in every particular, and that
the warrant that had been issued by the /louse was good.—
(Hear.) The judgment of the Court was contrary to law, and
compromised the honour and privilege of the House. The
warrant. on the face of it, was acted to the Sergeant-at-
Arms, to take into costody a certain indivelual, and was
per-
fectly correct. But whether the Queen's Bench was rielit or
wrong in its decision, the question to decide was, did it p•• -
ects the power to interfere on a Parliamentary warrant. He
would say and maintain that Parliamentary powers were only
amenable to Parliamentary rules—( Hear)—and he thought
the Court of Queen's Bench had greatly overstepped its autho-
rity in endeavouring to set aside the warrant that had been is-
sued. He would say that when his Hon. and Learned Friend
told the House that it would sustain no injury by levying the
execution, it would sustain greater evil by refuting to
sustain a writ of error in prevention.
Mr. KELLY rose, and said he wished to explain. The
question had been put to him whether, if the sheriffs were to
sebmit to the House of Commons, and refuse to levy the writ
issued by the Court of Queen's Bench, would they be protected
by the House of Commons? His answer was, that if the
sheliffs refused to levy any writ they would be liable to attach-
ment and imprisonment until the writs were levied. His Hon.
and Learned Friend had accused him of having been the volun-
teer counsel on the argument that bad taken place, but he
would tell his Honourable and Learned Friend that he had a re-
tainer in that case, and he argued the case a; he would have
argued any other case, and there was nothing inconsistent in
what he bad done.
Mr. DUNDAS expressed his surprise at the observations
that had fallen from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
over the way. He felt persuaded that he of all men ought not
to have tied his hands and have fettered himself as a Member
of Parliament, by receiving a fee in such a case. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had said if his advice was required on
the question ho would willhigry give it, aotwithstaieling the
retainer he had received, but he would have the House to be
cautious how they received Isis gratuitous advice. The
House of Commons hail acted right when they availed
themselves of the only legal measure of letting the Court of
Queen's Bench know what and how great were their privi-
leges. The law officers of the Crown had beer, instructed to
defend the action ; but he would deny that at any time the House
of Commons yielded to tke decision of the Queen's Bench
those privileges to which they were constitutionally entitled.
It might, perhaps, be a matter of regret that the Court df
Queen's Bench had ever, in any way, been allowed to inter-
fere; and he would contend that no Court in Great Britain
should ever be permitted to decide on their privileges.—
( Hear, hear.) It was now known that the Committee of In-
quiry had reported as their opinion that a writ of error should
be issued into the Court of Exchequer. Now he could not
imagine how die Hon. and Learned Member could even con-
sent to an appeal to the Court of Exchequer; but the appeal
would be made if his motion were carried. He (Mr. Dundas)
would advise a bold step, and let ns remain as we are---(1-1sar)
—and abide by the loss, if any shall accrue. The public would
stand by us in the position we assumed, and our honour and
privileges would remain untarnished and undiminished. It
would be advisable to follow the advice of the Noble Lord the
Member for Sunderland, and depend on ourselves for relief
as to the difficulty. Ho, for his part, would support the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord, and only regretted that his Hon. and
Learned Friend should have proposed so ungracious a resolution.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it appeared to him
inconsistent with the privileges of the House to allow this
matter to remain in its present position. He would entirely
coincide in the view which his Hon. and Learned Friend had
taken. Was the execution of the writ to be averted by pro-
ceeding to..extremities ? If the House intended to interfere
further it would be proper for those who suggested this mea-
sure to state how far they intended to proceed in that course.
It would not satisfy the honour and privileges of the House if
they rested merely with the punishment of the irresponsible
subordinates. All persons, no matter what their stations
were, ought to be proceeded against, who interfered with
the privileges of the House.—Hear, hoar.) The public feeling
would be carried with you in the prosecution of such a
course. Public opinion would sustain them if they did not
flinch from maintainieg unreservedly the dignity of their
rights. When a warrant had been issued against the Speaker
upon a question where the privileges of the House had been
concerned, the House had allowed the Speaker to appear and
plead against the action. From the year 1810 until the year
1836, no occasion had arisen in which it had been necessary for
the House to decide whether it was right or wrong
to pursue a similar line of proceeding. In I S'l6
the question arose to which all their difficulties might
be traced. This was the direction to plead to the action of
Stockdale against Hansard, which had itself been occasioned
by the publication of Messrs. Hansard of the Reprt of the In-
spectors of Prisons, part of which report had
been published by Stockdale himself ; to that
action the Attorney. General had pleaded the general issue.
Ile had pleaded the general issue under the orders of the House.
It had happened unfortunately on that occasion that the Lord
Chief Justice had expressed a strong opinion on the right of
the House to enforce any such order, or to express any opinios
of the conduct of their fellow-subjects which might not be ex-
pressed by any person out of that House. That eminent per-
son had, it is true, in the most generous manner, on another
occasion, lamented the warmth of expression into which he had
been betrayed at a subsequent opportunity, when he gave
judgment in the case of Stockdale. Alter that time a Com-
mittee bad been obtained, and that Committee came to a ceedee
of resolutions, which were reported to the House on the tetn of
May, 1837, and en the 30th of May the resolutions were
adopted. By the law of the privileges of Parliament, it was
agreed that the House had the right of carrying these resolu-
tions into effect to their utmost extent ; and they would render
any party contravening them amenable to the displeasure of
the House, and liable to punishment for so doing.—(llear.)
Only two days after that time, the Attorney-General had
taken an active part in the debate, and had expressed himself
very strongly on the subject. On the Bth of June, alter that
period, the .Attorney-General had come down to the House
from the Messes. Hansard, and requested, on their behalf, per-
mission to plead to the action, and he had recommended the
House to come to the decision of allowing them to do so. By
the resolutien. it teas decided that any person would commit a
breach of privilege by commencing any action in a court of law.
Alter this, in 1843, this action was brought in consequence of
what had taken place in 1840, notwithstanding it had been
said that any one going into a court of law would be guilty of
a breach of privilege. The resolution come to on that occasion
was that the Sergeant-at-Arms should plead to the action.
No-,v, when the House came to this resolution, it was impos-
silde to say to the House when they went into the Court et
Queen's Bench, what view that Court might adept.
It was, therefore, impossible that the House should
kiiow what view the Court would take at that time
of the case of Stockdale anti Hansard, or whether they would
take thequestionof privilege into consideration at all. The
Court hail refused to be fettered by the question of privilege,
anti had entered into the whole question. Strong expressions
from the Hon. Member for Worcester had induced them to
suppse that such would he the case, ar.d his Right Hon.
Friend at the head of the Govertnuent had warned the House
that the court of law might not enter into the whole question,
and he (the Solicitor-General) thought, therefore, that he
could not censi.itently give his support to the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Montrose. They had evidently gone
into a court of law with the impression that the court of law
might take or have a particular impression of the case, and
come to an unfavourable decision. The Court did come to
that decision, and he thought that if the House were now to
endeavour to carry their resolutions into force, they would do

.
a warrant.
Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the motion.
Lord HOWICK thought it would be better that the House
should not pronounce any opinion on this matter, but that it
would be more expedient that the debate be adjourned, which

he moved accordingly.
Sir R. PEEL said that it would amount to the same thing
if the Noble Lord would not put his amendment, for the House
would not in either case come to any decision on the subject.
Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed entirely in the amendment of
the Noble Lord, and thought the House should in some degree
consult the impression which would be made upon the public,
who at this moment were under a great misapprehension re-
garding them, and which would be much strengthened by the
course which the Right Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat
down proposed. He could not help expressing his entire assent
with the Hon. Member for Montrose, though he could not sup-
port his motion that if the threatened proceedings wore perse-
vered in the parties who promoted and abetted them would be
guilty of a gross violation of the privileges of that House.—
( Hear, hear.) They were now about to be engaged in a con-
flict to which they should not lightly commit themselves, but
upon which, when Nice entered, they should act firmly and dee
cidedly.—(Cheers.) He would support the amendment of his
Noble Friend.
Sir R. INGLIS said, though ueaccustomed to concur with
the Hon. Member for Montrose, he agreed with him in think-
ing that it was more desirable that the House should now come
to a decision on this important matter. Now was the time for
them to devide, for it would be idle further to talk about the
inviolability of their privileges after they had been violated.—
( Hear, hear.) For his part, he did not think they had been
violated,' but if they were to take up their stand against the
law of England, now was the time.
Mr. ROEBUCK was not at all influenced by tbe observa-
tions of the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of
Orford. When Hon. Members talked of haste and the
necessity for deliberation, he begged to ask them how long had
this measure been under consideration? Every individual
Member was now as well prepared to come to a decision as he
could be on 11Ionday night. The question went far deeper
than it would at first sight appear.—( Hear, hear.) The Hoe.
Baronet and the Noble Lord opposite were opposed to the pri-
vileges of the House, end he could not wonder at it. So long as
the House merely represented the aristocracy, none could be
more chary of its privileges than the High Tory party ; but
the moment it became, in part, at least, a House in which the
people were represented, that moment they abandoned them.
He saw the Noble Lord cpposite shrove(' his shoulders when
he said " representatives of the people," and he (Mr.
Roebuck) had no doubt hut the Noble Lord re-
garded such representatives in a very contemptuous light.
(Crites of " Oh, oh.") He would not dwell further on that,
but would tell those Hon. Members that he for one was pre-
pared to pit the House of Commons against tile Queen's Bench
from the first hour of its exissence to the present moment. The
Queen'a Bench had always been opposed to the liberties of the
peoole, and had often been the abettor of wicked and tyrannical
monarehs..— (ironical cries of " Hear, hear.") Did they
deny this—he was prepared to prove it from the history of this
ceenitre.—( Hear, hear.) Might he net refer to the days of
Hemp:len, and to cringing favouring juilges, chief jestices, ton,
who were stilling to gratify the propensities of the Sovereign
at tile expense of justice. In those days the Queen's Bench
abetted tile King in his assaults upon the liberties of the coun-
try, whilst that House manfully stood by them and resisted
sucli encroachments. He had no doubt but the Hon. Baronet
the :Member for Oxford would have been very anxious for the
privileges of that House in the days of John Wilkes—he would
then have fought as manfully as anybody for their privileges,
not because they were the privileges of the House of Commons,
but because he could contend for them in opposition to the
liberties of the people. They must now make a stand for their
privileges or give them up altogether, and permit the Ilouse to
become a mere secondary authority—inferior to the meanest
court of justice an the kingdom.—s Hear.) Within the last
four weeks a gentleman bait appealed to the British law fur his
liberty, but the Court of Queen's Bench yielded with perfect
acquiescence to the Royal Court of Jersey, told him he resist
submit to the constituted authorities of this realm, and sent back
the unfortunate man to be dealt with as the Royal Court of
Jersey might think properr. But if the House of Commons
dared to interfere, even for the protection of its own privileges,
them the Queen's Bench Stepped in and treated as waste paper
their rules and privileges. " Who is the House of Commons?"
said the Queen's Bench ; " whet are we to know about the
House of Commons—the Court of Jersey is a constituted au-
thority; but who are they—why'should they bring the man to the
bar ?" He was brought here by the- warrant of the first
officer of that House ; a warrant, worded with all formality and
regularly prepared, and to say that such a warrant should not
be valid, was to forfeit all their privileges as representatives of
the people of England. He (Mr. Roebuck) was prepared to
carry the matter out and abide the consequences.—(Hear. )
Suppose there shoild be at a future time a chief justice who
would be the pliant tool of a despotic sovereign ; and supposing
that House to come into collision with the Queen's Bench,
what would ha the result—how was the House to guard against
the precedent which Hon. Members opposite were so anxious
to establish?—(Hear, hear)—TheQueen's Bench would
persevere in its course, and it might come to pass that the
Sergeant-at-Arms, having no domicile—(The Hon. and
Learned Member here let his voice fall to so low a key that
several Hon. Members, unable to catch the last word, asked,
" No what?" The Hon. Member replied, in nearly as low a
tone, " No domicile." The question was repeated by Hon.
Members in a distant part of the House, upon which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, with a voice loud and irascible,
shouted out, " No domicile," which occasioned roars of laugh-
ter from all parts of the House.) The Sergeant-at-Arms
having ne domicile, the Queen's Bench would issue a warrant
against his person, and the catchpole might seize him by the
neck—no, he would not say in that House—they would not
dare to venture so far—but in its precincts, whilst executing
the business of the House, and drag him before the Court.
Where, then, was the great bulwark of the liberties of the
English people? They would no longer be in a position to be
their protectors. They would have lost their independence,
and could not be thereafter designated what they were now
proud to assert, the representatives of the commonalty of
England.—( Cheers. )
Sir JOHN HANMER agreed with the Noble Lord, and
would support his amendment.
Mr. WARBURTON would support the motion of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Montrose.
Mr. D'ISRAELI said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had described those Members on the Ministerial side of the
House as opposing the privileges of the House of Commons,
because the House now represented the feelings of the people
of England; and then the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in
describing with extraordinary inconsistency those privileges, so
important to the public interest, and so indispensable to the
liberties of the public, turned round and said--." Where would
you have been if a Hampden had not arisen and vindicated
the privileges of that House." But that Hon. and Learned
Gentleman (Mr. (Roebuck) appeared to have forgotten that
at that time it was an aristocratic assembly that supported the
privileges of that House—an assembly not elected by the con-
stituencies so numerous as those represented by the pre-
sent House of Commons. He could not understand why the
Hon. and Learr4-Gentleman should impute to Members on
his (Mr. D'lsraelrs) side of the House, a desire to give up or
repudiate the privileges of the House, because that House repre-
sented the people of England to a greater extent than it had
done before the recent alteration made in its constitution, and
at the same time appeal to the times of Hampden, when the
House of Commons had asserted its privileges.—( Hear hear. )
It might be true that judges hail been and might be
corrupt, but the Hon. and, Learned Gentleman should have
been the last to assert that Parliament had not been corrupt also.
He wres sure the people of England would be able to distin-
guish between the Parliament of England and one branch of
the Legislature. In dealing with this subject, lie did not
dwell much on what the House of Commons might have done
in former times ' • hut he might state, that every case of tyranny
that could be brought against the Court of Queen's Bench,
mieht find its parallel in the proceedings of the House of Com-
mons. He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that it
was necessary to try and settle the great issue so long pending.
--(Hear, hear.) Ho wondered that any one should say that
there had not been sufficient time allowed the House to de-
cide upon the course it should take. It could not he asserted
that the subject came upon them suddenly. Ever since he had
held a scat in that House, the question hail been often mooted,
and Hon. Members had always evaded the difficulty—had in-
variably procrastinated the evil hour.—( Hear, hear.) Let
the lion. and Learned Gentleman and his supporters try the
ease, mad send the Lord Chief Justice of England to the
'rower, and then it would be seen with whom the
affections of the people of England rested.—( Hear, hear. )
He was of opinion with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that
the time was come when the House should stand forth
and try the question between the privileges of that Home
and the authority of the courts of law, but he (Mr. D'lsraeli)
could not conceive how any one could stand up in that House
and assert that they required time to consider how they should
treat this question ; or could assert that it had come suddenly
upon theist—that it had fallen like a star in the serene at-
mosphere of Parliamentary discussion—or like a comet, the
course of which conld not be ascertained, and the appearance of
which was altogether unexpseted. It was by this continual
system of procrastination that they were now brought to the
extreme paint—like a man in din:lll6es who hail always put
off the evil hour. After the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench had been vindicated under circumstances the most igno-
minious, it was quite impossible for the House to offer the pre-
tence that the opportunity still remained to try the justice
of that decision. '1 he bight Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) dwelt strongly on the advice which
lie gave in reference to the public opinion out of doors. Ile
(Mr. Dissaeli) ranted to bully what public opinion? The
judgment of the Court of Queens Bench lie Mend
was vindicated in the property or person of the
chief ofileer of that Court, and the people oil the country
would nut refine much upon the qiiestion. They would un-
dbisne:rriisiiebtias:neibidt:hvituie,ha,rtaieft an h u subject of her Majesty h:d had the
daring to put himself in collision with the House of Commons,
and had gained the decision and authority of the courts of law
contrarye,,astrophtl the
would
necessaryahl
elrigeewldtooauspkt.nrhite:), nut
lioarinigmeerat3thnyosoirnurfie
such
ahhsaees eisonttiulbuiniryetir,:htt;:td.bh_ubatet(eowlinnoedtuahelrde.
champions of thosielop..l4
He (Me. D'lsr ) should- not at all deplore the
e'eayllueed torhvyalithe Hon. Gentlemen opposite, the
hear.)
of the people
egniebs, but he considered those pri-
er.,fciir Bath declared necessary
vileges which tlvi.
all gentlemen of his school, hrtn' eges which
(however, like
for the liberty
might avoid definitions)—pri-

so without the benefit of public opinion; and without the
advantage of the assistance of that public opinion,
he thought that it would be unwise to carry that
resolution into effect.—( Hear, hear.) He did not
therefore think that this was the proper moment for the
House to stop the execution ; and he therefore felt that it
was impossible to adoptthe course recommended by the Hon.
Member for Montrose. He did not think that they would
have public opinion with them in endeavouring by force to
carry these resolutions into effect, by the imprisonment of the
plaintiff in this action. What, then, were they to do? Were
they to postpone the question and allow the goods of the Ser-
geant to be levied upon ? and were they to suffer him to be
the victim of their own supineness? But he did not think that
this would consist with their dignity, nor was it any more
wise to postpone the decision of this question, and expose
their officers to the consequences of their neglect. They could
of after this use force to commit the parties who were thus
offending against their privileges. The House, therefore,
should come to some decision on this point to-night, for, unless
they interposed, the execution must take place.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to state what had been
the course pursued on former occasions. In the particular case
referred to by the Solicitor-General, the House had directed
their officer to plead to the action. That was the course on a
former occasion, but on that specified occasion the House did
not plead. The question was now whether the damages should
be levied, and the House should or should not pay the damages.
The House had been advised by the Attorney-General to
plead to the action. He (Lord John Russell) had proposed to
the House that Howard and allthose who acted with him should
oe summoned to the bar of the House. The House had not
agreed with him at that time and this was the consequence.
fhe motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose could not
i* his opinion be acceded to, and unless the House interposed
the execution must be levied. The Solicitor-General had
read the resolutions adopted on a previous occasion, yet the
question was whether they were right or not, and it was an im-
perative duty on the part of the House to come to a decision,
and agree whether they, should allow Mr. Howard to levy for
the damages under this judgment or not.
Sir R. INGLIS rose only to say one werd on the observa-
tions of the Hon. Member for Sutherland. He observed, that
that portion of his speech in which he had spoken of the
Hon. Member for Cambridge having taken a brief on this suit
as a breach of privilege, was loudly cheered. Now he (Sir
R. Inglis) thought if that were a breach of privilege, it was
equally se for the Attorney and Solicitor-General to have taken
briefs on the other side.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was only postponing the evil day to
defer the decision of this question, and he thought that it
would only be increasing the difficulty by deferring their deci-
sion till Monday night; and if they were disposed to resist en-
croachments, this was the day. He did not understand that
what they had done, or the allowance of this judgment, was in
any way a recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court over
their privileges. He had been a party to the resolutions
respecting their privileges. On the previous occasion they had
acted under advice, and, after eight days, had consented to
plead. This they had done when Lord Campbell was Attorney-
General, and he would say that the privileges of the House
had never had a more zealous or able advocate.—(Cheers.)
He had been quite inclined to exert the power of the House,
and it was by his advice that they had pleaded the general
issue. It was on this high authority that they had consented
to plead, and he did not understand the doctrine that this was an
admission of the jurisdiction over the privileges of the House.
It was a ;doctrine and a distinction which he could not ac-
knowledge. If they went to the ulterior fact, and cane to the
resolution of allowing the Sergeant to pay, they would be un-
able to go further; but he thought the most advisable plan
would be to give a distinct notice to the parties not to carry
their execution into effect. By this means they would relieve
themselves from any false position, and then they would
be able, if they thought proper, to commit those
who were guilty of any breach of their privileges.
He (Sir R. Peel) objected to the motion of the Hon. Member
for Montrose, for he was not prepared to enter intoany contro-
versy on the subject. He thought the consequence of his mo-
tion would be to increase the difficulties by which they were
surrounded. But while he admitted that he was not prepared
to enter upon this discussion, he was fully prepared to vincli-
c tte the privileges of the House.—(Cheers) And if the
House intended to uphold those privileges, he would tell them
that it was absolutely necessary that they should make up their
minds not to deal with subordinate officers merely. That
course could give no satisfaction. They were, on the
one hand, dealing with mere agents—sheriffs and other
officers ; and, on the other, with the Court of
Queen's Bench. He said that they must deal
with higher personages, they must deal with the Court of
Queen's Bench itself. The House had, by a resolution passed
at a former period, determined to uphold. and maintain their
privileges—privileges which were given them not for their own
benefit—not that they might be capriciously exercised—but for
the interests of a free people.—(Cheers.) If they were pre-
pared to uphold and exercise those privileges, they must take a
different course from that adopted in 1840. They ought to be pre-
pared to go to the utmost extremity in vindication of their privi-
leges, but beD>re they did so,they musticonvince their own minds,
their own consciences that such a state was absolutely necessary,
and that no other resource was left them. They must not only
conceive themselves that such was the case, but they must im-
press the same opinion on the minds of the people of England.
The prominent feeling was at present in their favour. Fortu-
nately the period had not yet arrived when extreme measures
were necessary. He should recommend that for the present
the defendant should be allowed to try his case at bar, to appeal
from the decision of the Queen's Bench, and to-carry the ques-
tion before a Court of Error. He trusted that he had con-
vinced the House that he himself had shown no disinclination
to vindicate the privileges to which they were justly entitled, but
a 3 they had a powerful minority in the House to contend with,
he was not willing that they should press the question to an
issue. But still, if no other means were left them, if no other
resources were at hand, he should be prepared to proceed with
the question in that House, and to maintain privileges which
he believed were essential to the rights and liberties of a free
people—privileges which were now invaded by a decision of
the Court of Queen's Bench—a decision which he believed to
be unjust, and which ought, in maintenance of the rights and
privileges of that House, to be set aside.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BERNAL was free to confess, from what he knew of the
constitution of the House, that any report emanating from
the Committee at any future period, could not put the House
ina better position f, r deciding the question than they were
in at that period. He thought that, in the course of the dis-
cussion, much matter had been introduced which had no re.
lation to the subject, and he should, therefore, very shortly
recal the attention of the House to the real matter at issue.
Ile thought that where there was a choice of difficul-
ties they should adopt a mild before they pro-
ceeded to an extreme course, and, therefore, he entreated
his [lon. Friend the Member for Montrose to give way to those
whose opinions in that House were entitled to some weight, and
not to place himself in a situation which he would afterwards
regret—a situation which would effectually prevent him speak-
ing again in that House.
Mr. HUME said that the Hon. Member who had just sat
down had cautioned him against putting himself in a position
which would prevent him opening his lips in that House, yet
the Hon. Member had admitted that ke ( Mr. Hume) was right
in bringing forward his motion, and yet, that Hon. Member had
not the moral courage to support him.—(Cheers.) The
Learned Solicitor-General had shown them the evils, explained
the difficulties of their position, and, after all, he had sat
down without telling them what to do. Were they to allow
themselves to go on in error, to get deeper and deeper into dif-
ficulties until they would eventually find themselves inevitably
anti irrecoverably committed.
The House then divided. The numbers were—
For the adjournment
Against it
Majority . —46
ACADEMICAL INSTITUTIONS (I REL AND) BILL.
On our re-admission to the gallery we found the House in
discussion on the subject of proceeding with the Irish Acade-
mical Institutions Bill.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied that he could say
that the Government did not propose any material altera-
tion in the Bill in consequence of the memorial of the
Roman Catholic Bishops, which, however, they thought
worthy of a full consideration, but the Government were de-
termined not to depart from the principle of the Bill.
Lord JOHN MANNERS begged leave to suggest that the
discussion of so important a measure might be postponed, with-
out inconvenience, to next week.
Sir R. INGLIS objected to proceeding with the discussion
at that late hour.
In answer to a question from Mr. SHEIL,
Sir R. PEEL said that it would be left open to the Catholic
community to provide professors if they pleased, but there
would be no interference on the part of the Government.
Mr. OSBORNE said that as an Irish liberal Protestant he
would support every measure which would promote the educa-
tion of his countrymen, but he greatly regretted to see in the
memorial of the bishops a demand that the professors of
weateria medics should be Roman Catholics. He deeply re.
gretted that whilst he laboured himself to enlarge the liberties
of his Catholic fellow-countrymen, he could see on their part
a disposition to restrict the liberties of others.
Sir W. JAMES would like to know if this Bill advocated
what Mr. O'Connell called the voluntary principle.—(Cries
of " Oh, oh," and " Order.")
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had had some experience in Par-
liamentary business, but he should say he had not heard any-
thing like the course pursued in reference to this Bill.—( Hear,
hear.) He had every disposition to answer questions, and he
had answered several, and all he could say now was, that this
Bill had been framed with a view to establishing a national
system.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. HOPE—This had been called a system of acade-
mical education, but not religious. Now, ho would wish to
know if this was to be a system of academical education, or
such a system as Ireland could afford.—(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and "Don't answer.")
The question was then put that the Bill be read a second
time. r
Lord JOHN MANNERS ,said he never in his life rose in
that House with greater reluctance upon any question than he
did in rising to propose the rejection of the Bill now before the
House, as proposed by her Majesty's Government; but the
nature of the measure was such as obliged him, however pain-
ful to himself, or wearying to the House, to oppose it, and
state his reasons for doing so. He had heard this called a
measure for giving education in Ireland. Now, he should say
he thought education a very different thing. He never could
call this an educational measure so long as it contained such
a clause as the one he now held in his hand, and which was to
the effect that no religious test should be applied to any of the
pupils, or any of the candidates for the privileges or offices of
the colleges. He knew not what might he the feelings of
Hon. Members on this or the opposite side of the House,
on this part of the`subject ; but this he would
say, . that he was as anxious as any Member
of the House to see ample justice done to the
people of Ireland; but he felt bound to say, after the de-
claration he had heard from the Right Hon. Baronet the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, of his determina-
tion to adhere to the principle of the Bill, he had no other
course open to him but to move the rejection of the Bill. He
knew he would be met by the assertion that the measure was
founded upon the systems of education in force in foreign
countries ' • but he would contend for it that nothing could be
more mischievous than the systems that had of late obtained in
France and in Prussia. In fact, the volcano on which France
at present stood ought to warn this country in time not to imi-
tate the example of that country. He would ask was he not
warranted in opposing this meaoire when he saw the names of
fifty of the bishops of the Anglican Church express their oppo-
sition to the measure, because they looked upon it as a system of
education which threatened to rend the country to pieces.
Whatever might be the effects of such a measure in this coun-
try, he would say, that it would produce results far worse, and
more deplorable, in Ireland,. He had heard of one instance of
a person being promoted to a high office for endeavouring to
alienate the Roman Catholic people from their religion in Ire-
land, and of another instance in Spain, where the Order of
Isabella was conferred upon an individual for doing the fame in
the Basque Provinces. Now, he would be far from advocating
such acts, but he had no doubt, that it this Bill would not have
that effect in Ireland, it would prove to be worse than useless
as an educational measure. Ile well knew in what the diffi-
culties of. Ireland consisted, and he was aware how religious
differences in that country had compelled many to take parts
in them that they could have wished to avoid. He might
be told, that before Honourable Members rose to
oppose this measure, they ought to be prepared with a
better one. Now he had no objection to say he was prepared
with a Bill ; but before he submitted it to the House he
would say, that however it might fail in attaining the object
in view, he could not conceive any measure so bad or ineffec-
tual as the one now before the House. He would like to
know what probability there was of this measure ever being