The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TGESDA I EVENING, JULY f, 1845.

that the other partners in a concern should plead igno-
rance of what one partner had done in the business as a
ground for their own responsibility. He still thought
that the other five persons should be brought to the bar.
Mr. HUME said the Rouse was departing from the
matter for which they were then assembled.—(Hear.)
He thought they ought not to separate without settling
the question as regarded all the parties. He hoped the
amendment for inserting the word " to-morrow" would
be withdrawn.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
after the principal had promised to discontinue the ac •
Lion, the attorney would not go on with it.
Sir T. WILDE said that the House had sufficient be-
fore it to deal with the case.—(Hear, hear.) He was
prepared to move a resolution, to the effect that the
action was brought contrary to the privileges of the
House, but that Mr. Phillips had expressed his regret
for the offence, which he said was committed in ig-
norance of the privileges of the House, and had promised
to dischtinue the action ; therefore the House would
proceed no further.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said he had a petition in his hand
from Mr. Phillips, which expressed his regret for
violating the privileges of the House through ignorance,
and promised to proceed no further with the action.
However, he (Sir J. Y. Buller) could not present the
petition at that moment.
Sir R. INGLIS thought that the House would not
discharge its duty if it did no► come to a decision upon
the case before it separated. If the House were to be
satisfi€d with the petition of the offending person, that
petition ought to be presented by the person himself at
the bar.

After a few words from Mr. WARBURTON,
Mr. DIVETT withdrew, for the present, his motion,
Lord J. RUSSELL, at the same time, withdrawing
his amendment.
Sir J. Y. BULLER then presented Mr. Phillips's pe-
tition, after the reading of which
Sir T. WILDE moved two resolutions :—First, That
an action had been brought by David Phillips for evi-
dence given before a Committee of that House. Secondly,
That the commencement of such action was a breach of
the privileges of the House.
The resolutions were put without any dicussion, and
were carried unanimously.
After protracted consultations (in private) between
the principal Members who had taken part in the
discussion,
Sir R. PEEL read from the journals the resolution
which had been passed in 1696, in the case of Gee, and,
adapting that to the present case, moved a resolution to
the effect " That, in consideration that David Phillips, in
a petition presented to this House, has disclaimed all
intention of violating the privileges of the House in
commencing the action, and has expressed contrition for
his offence, praying the lenient consideration of the
House, and declaring that it is net his intention to pro-
ceed further with the action, the House does not think it
necessary to take any further steps for the punishment
of the said offence."
The resolution was then carried, without discussion or
dissent.

Sir T. WILDE said that, with respect to the attorneys,
it would be wise to give them till to-morrow to consider
what they ought to do.
Sir R. PEEL thought that Phillips should be called to
hear the resolution of the House.

Sir T. WILDE said that there was no occasion to do
Mr. Phillips the honour of again calling him before the
bar.

Mr. DARBY was desirous that the matter should be
postponed till to-morrow.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know what was the
course they were about to pursue, and the matter could be
got through in half an hour.
Lord HO WICK entirely concurred in the opinion that

they should be called to the bar to-morrow. He thought
it much better to give the parties an opportunity of
making a secession or not, and present a petition.
Mr. HUME did not know why they should postpone the
matter, now that the parties were present. He thought
that it would lower the dignity of the House, instead of
adding to it, by delaying the examination. He thought
that they should proceed at once.
Mr. DIVETT thought that it would be unsatisfactory

that the House should divide on this question. Under ail
circumstances, it was better that the parties should
attend to-morrow instead of this day. Some Gentlemen
might dissent with that opinion, but he thought that it
was the general impression of the House. That being
the case, he would move that the parties should attend
at the bar of the House to-morrow.

Mr. WAKLEYobjected to the motion, in consequence
of the many motions that would be interfered with by
renewing the matter to-morrow. They had the wit-
nesses in attendance, and the lawyer, who
was the real sinner, was in the lobby, and why
should they allow him to escape ?—(Hear, hear.)
The principal had settled the matter as far as he was
,concerned, more than which he could not do. All the
attorney could do was to settle the matter of contempt
with them. He was perhaps as unlearned a gentleman
in the privileges of the House as the gentleman who
was already examined before then. If they called on
Mr. Phillips, he would tell them who it was that had
advised him. He should like to know what eminent
counsel it was that advis'd him in the matter. The
matter was settled satisfactorily with reference to the
principal, and he wished that the main sinner should not
escape.
Mr. SHAW thought the question was merely in what
form they should present their petition to the House.
lie was of opinion that they should postpone the matter
till to-morrow, to give them time to prepare it.
Mr. GRANGER thought that the proper course
would be to call in the attorney- at once. It could not be
adjourned till to -morrow.
Lord HO WICK said a few words in explanation.
Sir R. PEEL said that if the House came to the de-
termination of having the attorney examined, it would
then b.! a mere question as to the necessity of a postpone-
ment. They had got from the principal the assur-
ance thst the action would be waived, and he did not see
clearly why they should deal with the attorney. All
the attorney could do was to submit in this matter.
Then the question wou'd what should be the degree
of submission necessary ? He would let the House de •
tide with regard to the principal.
Mr. HUME hoped the Hon. Member would move that
all parties be discharged now. Either let them deal with
them now, or let them be discharged.
Mr. DIVETT said that it was their desire to bring
the parties to the bar of the House for the purpose of
discovering who were the real parties in the action.
Mr. HINDLEY thought that as the principal in the
matter came before them and made a submission, which
was satisfactory, the sooner they wiped their hands of the
matter the better.

Sir R. PEEL wished to know, as the declaration had
been signed, and as the action had commenced, whether
the plaintiff by his own power could do away with the
action ?

Sir T. NVILDE said that it was not in the power of
the attorney to prevent a bonei fide discharge of an action
or its continuance. It was not in the power of the
plaintiff to put an end to an action or to continue it. The
attorney migl.t go on for the costs.
Mr. I'. BORTHWICK thought that as the parties
were prepared to make amends, they ought to be dis-
charged.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not the less inclined to
call them because they had an assurance of a reparation.
He doubted, however, the policy now of dealing further
with it.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in future the responsi-
bility, according to the present resolution, would fall only
on the principal and not on the attorney. The attorney
ought to be called to the bar now, or the parties should be
discharged altogether. If witnesses went before an
Election Committee and maligned a man, he would be
liable to an action, and why should not witnesses who
did the same before other Committees be also responsi-
ble. The principal had withdrawn under the impression
that some redress would be afforded to him. It would
be much better to discharge them altogether, or come to
the resolution that they were, or were not, guilty of a
breach of privilege.
Sir T. WILDE said that all parties were equally
guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, but
they were considering the conduct of David Phillips
alone ; and it was most correct that they should come to
the resolution that he was guilty of a breach of their
privileges. The House must be aware that there had
been instances where parties had complained of the ad-
ministration of the law, in cases where committals had
taken place upon convictions of charges of slander under
similar circumstances to the case now under discussion ;
but without going to a trial at all, it would be compe-
tent for this House to commit any party who should be
proved to have been guilty of such conduct before a
Committee. But what he complained of was, that no
such representation of false evidence had been made to
this House, and, therefore, he did not think that the
question should now be attempted to be got rid of by a
side-winded decision.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly
a most important question ; but he would now confine
himself to the question as to whether the House would
have the attorneys or the principal before it.—(Hear,
hear.) He did hope, then, that the House would main-
tain its privileges, which they would not at all compro-
mise by giving the parties time, and call them up to-
morrow.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no di-
vision took place, the amendment having been withdrawn.
On our re-admission to the gallery,
Mr. ROEBUCK was addressing the House. He said
he did think that nothing could be more simple than for
the House to call the parties to the bar, and tell them
the penalty they had incurred, they having already ad-
mitted that they had been guilty of a breach of the pri-
vileges of the House, and were sorry for it.
Sir T. WILDE—The House having now decided as
to who the party was that they should call before them,
the next question was, whether the party should be
brought up to-night or to-morrow. If they were brought
up to-night the House should act to-night ; but the
House must be aware that it could not receive an apology
at the bar but by petition—(Hear, hear)—and therefore
it would be no use calling up the parties to-night ; and
would it not then be less derogatory to the House to ad-
journ the case till to-morrow than to call the parties to
the bar to-night, and decide to-morrow, when those
parties would, in the meantime, have an opportunity of
seeing what the proceedings of the House were?-7--(Hear.)
Mr. GREENE contended that the party appearing at
the bar and apologising, was quite enough to warrant
the House coming to a decision.
Sir J. GHAHAM said that before this discussion
proceeded any further, he begged to call to the recol-
lection of the House to the fact that the case of Stock-
dale and Hansard was decided verbally by the House.
The SPEAKER said that in reference to the case
mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet, the mode in which
the decision had been c to was correctly stated by
him ; and therefore it would be necessary for the House
to come to a decision to the effect that the parties should
be called to the bar before they could be called.
Mr. BERNAL conceived that three hours and a-half
of the time of the House had been consumed upon a sub-
ject which could have been disposed of in a few mintites.

Sir R. INGLIS did not feel satisfied with the state-
ment of the parties who had been before the bar of the
House. In their declaration there was evidence, from
the cautious way in which it was drawn up, that they
knew what they were about. He did not believe that
they were ignorant that the step they were taking was
in violation of the privileges of the House. He would
not allow them to get out of their present difficulty, by
agreeing to their dismissal, without a resolution being
come to expressive of the sense of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the Hon. Gentleman had not stated the case exactly.
The party (Mr. Phillips) had stated that he considered
the law justified him to prosecute any party who bad
given evidence before a Committee of the House, pro-
viding he had done so from a malicious consideration,
and had stated what was untrue. He was of opinion
that he could seek redress in a court of justice. Under
that impression he had brought the action. He the
(Chancellor of the Exchequer) was himself in doubt
about the point, and had consulted law books some on
one side, and some on the other. He would not, there-
fore, say that Mr. Phillips was aware that he was vio-
lating the privileges of the House by bringing the action.
Sir R. PEEL thought that it was not fair to attribute
to the party under consideration the motive that he
brought the action knowing that he was acting in oppo-
sition to the privileges of the House. He had stated that
he acted from ignorance, and they should give him the
benefit of that statement. He (Sir R. Peel) considered
that he had given ample satisfaction.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few observations from Mr. V. SNITS and Mr.
COLLETT,
Mr. G RANGER said that he considered this a most
unsatisfactory debate. They were about to teach the
public that they (the House) would take no step to assert
their privileges unless the principal and agent in an
action were prepared to set them at defiance. Those who
were most strenuous in asserting the privileges of the
House were now, it appeared, not prepared to act until
parties braved their authority.
Mr. DIVETT, after a few observations, withdrew his
amendment.
Lord IifOWICK suggested another course to the
House. He proposed that a resolution be adopted, to the
effect that an action having been brought against Mr.
Parrot, which had been considered a breach of the pri-
vileges of that House, and the party bringing the action
and his agents having disclaimed all intention of doing
anything in violation of those privileges, and having
expressed contrition for their offence, that the House did
not deem it necessary to take further proceedings. He
disagreed with what had fallen from the Hon. Member
for Durham (Mr. Granger), who had stated that they
were disposed to shrink from asserting their privileges.
That was not the case. He considered that it was ne-
cessary to maintain the privileges of the House, but
thought thecourse which had been recommended the best
in order to; secure that object. He objected to call on
parties to the bar to undergo punishment after having
intimated their submission. He concluded by moving
the resolution.
Sir R. PEEL had no objection to the course recom-
mended by the Noble Lord (Howick), but suggested
that the resolution should be withdrawn, and another
substituted, exonerating Thomas Edwards and the other
two attorneys in the action from all consequences arising
from the action, and also that the agents, Thomas Red-
dell Theodore ,Pratt, &c., be discharged from further
attendance.

Resolutions founded on the above suggestions were
then drawn up, submitted to the House, and agreed to.

COkMONS INCLOSURE BILL:

On the order of the day for the further consideration
of the above Bill being read, it was agreed to postpone it
until to- morrow evening.
IRISH COLLEGE BILL.

The order of the day for the Committee on the above

Bill was then read.

Mr. HANDLEY presented a petition from three de-
nominations of Protestant Dissenters against this Bill.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK moved the following clause

at the end of the 13th :—" And for the better securing
of the students in the said colleges at divine worship,
according to the creeds which they generally profess to
hold, be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the president
and professors, or other governing body of said colleges,
who shall be instituted, and in and by the said letters

patents, to assign chapels within the said colleges for the
use of the chaplains, to be endowed in the same man-
ner, and by the same authority as the professors ; and
that within such chapels prayers shall be read according
V) the forms of the religious creeds recognised by such
governing body, and that regulations shall be made for
the due attendance of the students for divine worship at
such of the said chapels as shall ,be approved of by their
parents and guardians respectively." Also to omit
clause 14 from the Bill.

Colonel SIBTHORP, in supporting the motion, said
he had every respect for the talents and former systema-
tic consistency of her Majesty's Ministers, but, never-
theless, he could not continue to place confidence in them
if they professed one thing, and acted diametrically
opposite to it, as they were doing in respect to this Bill.
He deeply regretted that the Bill should have emanated
from such a quarter, but he judged of men by their
actions, and not by their words, and nothing could restore
his former good opinion of those who had introduced
this measure while openly professing Protestantism.
No modifications could reconcile him to the Bill. He
envied no man his creed. Ile honoured alike the Roman
Catholic and the Dissenter, but he could not, as a
humble, though sincere and consciel tious Pro-
te,,:tant, subscribe to the principles contained
in the Bill. In his opinion, it was calcu-
lated to increase instead of diminish the diffi-
culties of Ireland ; and he confessed he would much
rather have seen it emanate from a different quarter.

He opposed the Bill on the second reading, and he would
oppose it again on the bringing up of the report, and he
should renew his opposition on the motion being made
for the third reading. There was another Bill, too, of
this nature, which he regretted had passed the other
House, but he would sit down in the hope that this Bill
would meet with a different fate.
Sir J. GRAHAM assured his Hon. and Gallant

Friend that Ministers were aware, when they determined

upon introducing the Bill, that it would 'prove unac-
ceptable to many of their supporters, but after the in-
quiries they had instituted into the subject, they f It it
to be their bounden duty to bring it forward at all
hazards. The Hon. Gentleman who had made the motion,
had said that he had curtailed the observation he had
originally intended to have made on the subject, and he
felt indebted to him for having done so, but still he could
not conceal from himself the fact, that the Hon. Gen-
tleman had gone at length, into matters quite distinct
from the question under consideration ; namely, the
clause he had proposed, and the clause he wished to
have expunged from the Bill.—(Hear, and laughter.)
With respect to the clause itself, he begged to remind the
Committee that they made ample provision for the reli-
gious instruction of the youth to be educated at the college,
but the Hon. Member, by his amendment, proposed to
abolish the clause which made that provision. But the
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman was at variance with the
spirit and principle of the Bill, for the Hon. Member
wished to establish separate chapels for the separate
sects and compel the inmates of the colleges to attend
them. He must say that such a compulsory course would
be hii hly injudicious under the existing circumstances
of Ireland. As he had already stated ample provision
would be made for affording religious instruction to the
inmates of the colleges, and he still thought it best to
leave it for the parents to see that their children were
attended properly to the instructions given to them. He
hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would refrain from
pressing his motion to a division.
Mr. WYSE thought it highly essential that provision
should be made for the proper religious learning of all
young men who were brought up in public seminaries,
but, nevertheless, he could agree with the Hon. Member
for Evershem, that it was advisable to establish
chapels in these colleges and enforce the
attendance of the inmates. He had, however, a more
paramount objection to the proposition of the Hon.
Member. The Hon. Member proposed to strike out the
only part of the Bill which made provisions for the reli-
gious education of the pupils, and he for one could not
consent to deprive the colleges of chairs for religious in-
struction. _ _ _

After a few words from Lord Bernard, Mr. Redington,
and Sir V. Blake,

Mr. P. BORTIIWICK replied, remarking that he did
not think it necessary to press his amendment to a
division.

The amendment was ultimately withdrawn.
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
a desultory conversation followed, and
Sir T. ACL AND moved an amendment to the
effect, that the president, vice-president, and every other
member of the governing body of each of the colleges,
should make and subscribe the following declaration :
I, A B, do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I ac •
knowledge and receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testament as containing the revealed will of
God." He was a firm supporter of the Bill, but he could
not reconcile it to his conscience to consent to a system
of education which would not secure that the teachers
should be at least profound believers in divine re-
velation, When the Government, with this caution,
gave every facility to the natural guardians of the
pupils to provide them with religious education, it could
not be said that this was a godless education. Whilst
his Right lion. Friend was taking care that there should
be no interference with the religious feelings of the
pupils, he should adopt this amendment, as a means of
securing that positive irreligion should not be taught.
There were many men of high scientific attain.
ments, to whom, however, no Christian parent
would intrust the instruction of his children.
The object of his amendment was to guard against
the introduction of such professors. His Right Hon.
Friend (Sir R. Peel) admitted the principle of this mo-
tion, when he said that if any professor were found to
tamper with the religious opinions of the pupils, he
would be immediately dismissed. But the parents of
Ireland had a right to demand that the children of Ire-
land should be guarded against such corruption by a
precautionary enactment. If any other Member sug-
gested a more efficacious mode of effecting the object
which he (Sir T. Acland) had in view, he would wil-
lingly give way. He would not insert one word that
would give offence or pain to any body of Christians.
He found that Dr. Arnold stated that there were certain
points of belief in which many Christians of every de-
nomination should believe. Dr. Arnold said that every
Christian should believe that the Old and New Testa-
ment contained the revelation of God's will to man. He
would conclude by proposing the amendment of which
he had given notice.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would be most anxious to
conciliate the Irish people, but he would have no objec-
tion to make any reasonable concessions.
Sir R. INGLIS supported the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Devonshire (Sir T. Acland). All that was
desired was what every man would require with regard
to his children in private life, therefore, he did not see
anything in it to -violate the conscience of any individual.
Mr. COWPER expressed his great satisfaction in
supporting the amendment.
Lord J. MANNERS referred to the system of educa-

tion i❑ France, supported by the Government of tbat
country, but which had been denounced by the Church
as infidel and atheistic. He was not prepared to say that
this was the case, yet he believed there was too much
reason for the charge. He would, therefore, support the
amendment. He believed the Bill would do no good for
Ireland whatever.

Sir R. PEEL supported the Bill as it stood. He did
not believe that infidelity or atheism was an evil to be
guarded against in either Ireland or England. The
very avowal of such sentiments was sufficient to deter
any individual from holding such situations without any
such declaration. The state of public opinion on re-
ligion in this country was such, that no security what-
ever was required. The test proposed afforded no se-
curity whatever, for it was wrong for parties to take the
declaration and afterwards to put a construction on
the Scriptures as alien to their true import as any that
might be taught by the professors in France or Ger-
many, to which reference had been made. He saw
serious objections to the amendment, and should, there-
fore, decidedly oppose it.
Mr. P. HOWARD concurred in the view taken by the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir B. Peel), and should support
the Government in opposition to the amendment pro-
posed by the Hon. Baronet (Sir T. D. Acland.)
Mr. ADDERLEY felt obliged to oppose the Govern-
ment and support the amendment.
Lord C. HAMILTON stated he felt himself bound to
oppose the amendment, and should support the Go-
vernment.

Mr. GLADSTONE said it was very natural for those
who entertained sentiments unfriendly to irreligious
education to express their opinions on the present op-
portunity. He thought, however, that with respect to
this test, there was great force in the objection of his
Right Honourable Friend, who saw it was much to 'l
ambiguous. The Honourable Member for Here-
ford said that though there was great difference of
opinion respecting versions of the Scripture, there was
not respecting the original. This was not so. There
was great difference of opinion between Protest ants and
Unitarians, and between Catholics and Protestants. A
test, however explicit at first, was subject to cavil, dis-
pute, and contention ; but what would be the effect of a
test which was at the very outset ambiguous. It was a
very serious matter for the House of Commons to adopt
such a test, although enforced by the opinions of the
late Dr. Arnold, whose reasoning on this subject did not
appear to him clear or satisfactory. His Hon. Friend
had chosen to use language in the test from that em-
ployed in the Thirty-nine Articles. Besides, he was of
opinion that the test would be anything but pleasing to
the Roman Catholics of Ireland—it was either too lax
or too exclusive ; it would be burdensome to the
consciences of many, whilst by Church of England
men its provisions must be deemed very lax indeed.
The tests proposed by the Hon. Member appeared to
him to be opan to the charge of being too loose and too
lax, and he must confess that it held out no hope of
future advantage; but, on the contrary, it was calculated
to excite in the minds of some, if not of all, delusive ex-
pectations. The test proposed was censurably ambi-
guous, and not likely to produce those advantages for
which tests were used. He hoped, therefore, the Com-
mittee would negative the amendment of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Devonshire.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REDINGTON was quite certain that if the pro-
posed test were adopted by the Committee, it would have
the effect of turning the minds of the people of Ireland
against the Bill, and he could not but hope that the
Hon. Member would see the necessity for not persisting
in the amendment.

The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majarity against it
On our return to the gallery we found

Mr. HINDLEY speaking against the 14th clause, and
urging upon the Committee the necessity for Parliament
leaving religious matters to be dealt with entirely by the
Church Itself. The clause would retard instead of ad-,
vaneing the progress or religious liberty, and, therefore
without troubling the House further, he would simply
move that the clause be altogether expunged from the Bill.
The Committee accordingly again divided, when there
appeared—
For the Amendment 0
For the clause
Majority —lOO
The clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On clause 15 being proposed,
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said, that as the clause first
stood, it was liable to very great objection, but in its
amended form he should offer it no opposition.
The clause was consequently agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 were passed without opposition.
On clause 19 being proposed,
Mr. SPOONER objected to it, because it allowed
teachers of all denominations to be elected for profes-
sorships. In this way, Turks, Jews, and others might
be introduced into the College. He would not detain
the House further at that hour, but he must, in conclu-
sion, enter his strong protest against the Bill.
Mr. P. HOWARD did not see any objection to the
alause. Ireland was divided into three great sects,
the Episcopalians, the Roman Catholics, and the Pres-
byterians, and they well knew that opposition prevented
imposition.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HINI)LEY objected to the clause, but the result
of the last division did not encourage him to press an
amendment.—(Laughter.) He should be contented
with this expression of his disapprobation.
Clauses 20 ani 21 were passed without opposition.
The preamble of the Bill was then agreed to, the
House resumed, and the Bill was crdered to be re-
ported this day.