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

An Hom. MEMBER asked what was intended to be
done with the Irish Lunacy Bill.
Sir R. lEEL's answer was not heard in the gallery,
but it was followed by some laughter in the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Ecclesiastical
Courts Bill was prepared by his Honourable Friend the
Member for Devon, who (from the state of his health,
as we under Stood) would not take part in the further
discussion this session. But if he thought that he could
secure a sufficient number of days, he would himself—
however unfit he might be—proceed with the Bill. In
1842 a similar Bill was brought in by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, and the House assented to the principle, and
passed the second reading. If, as it appeared, he could not
carry the Bill this session, he hoped that next year
he would receive from her Majesty's Government the
same assistance which in a similar situation he had given
to them.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had
spoken of the motions of which notice had been given to
be brought forward on the order of the day for
going into Committee of Supply. Now, he (Lord John
Russell) could not say what Gentlemen might think
proper to withdraw their notices for the sake of
allowing the public business
to proceed, and
of preventing the ession§ being inconveniently pro-
tracted ; but he viohld say, that there was one motion,
which he knew his Noble friend near him (Lord
Palmerston) thought it necessary to bring in upon
the question of supply—that was a motion on
the subject of the question which had arisen between
Spain and the Government with respect to the sugar
duties.—(Hear.) On that question it was the inten-
tion of his Noble Friend to ask the opinion of
the House.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the Bills
given up by the Right Hon. Gentleman, so far was he
from concurring in the opinion that the Government
ware to blame, he thought that so many important mea-
sures were brought in at the early part of the session,
that other business could not be further advanced.
LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Captain OSBORNE asked what was the intention of
the Government with respect to this Bill, on account of
which several Irish Members were now remaining in
town ?—(Cheers and laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL said that the Bill had been referred to
a Select Committee in the other House, and he was un•
able to say When it would reach this House.
IRISH COLLEGES BILL.
In answer to a question from Sir J. GRAHAM,
Captain'OSßOßNE said that he thought the Irish
Members would not object to the second reading of this
Bill being fixed for Wednesday.
THE ECCLESIASTIC AL COURTS BILL.

Sir R. INGLIS congratulated the House that this
Bill was withdrawn for this session, and he hoped that
al the Government had formerly brought in a much less
objectionable measure, they would not now accept this
Bill from their opponents.—(hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said that the Government Bill in 1842
v,tts very materially altered. Although the House as-
seated to the principle, the Government did not think it
desirable to proceed further at that time, in consequence
of the formidable opposition that was presented to it.
The principle of the present Bill was so much the same,
that he could not refuse his concurrence in it so far.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.

Lord HOWICK. said, that although the Bill was one
of a emninereial character and should be passed, yet
there was one clause which was not necessary, and he
hoped the measure would not be pressed after a majority
of Members had left town.
Sir R. PEEL said that no advantage would be taken.
IRISH REGISTRATION.

Mr. REDINGTON wished to ask what was the in-
tention of the Government with respect to the registra-
tion in Ireland, which was in a most unsatisfactory
gate ? This and other measures relating to Ireland was
mentioned in her speech, but anytkirq..,, impor-
tant to .land was neglected by the present farliarnent.
Sir R. PEEL was suprised that the lion. Gentleman
should have said that the subject of Irish rogistn,tion
haorbeen mentione I in the ,pe,ch fr)m the Timm!. He
was not aware that- it had. It . was true that shortly
after the commencement or the session statements had
ir'en made of the intention of the Govennient to intro-
duce the Maynooth Grant Bill and the Irish C011e,,,,-es
RH. The former measure had been carried, and the lat-
ter was coming on again that night, and would probably
wenpy a week. lie thought, therefore, the lion. Mem-
ty2r had no ground for complaining of the course the
Government had parsned with respect to Ireland.
COAL TRADE PORT OF ikOND.W.-T LILL.

Mr. IffIME wished to know whether the Government
would fix to-day or to-raorrow—some day on which the
Heine might come to some decision with respcct to the
Coal Duties Continuance Bill ?
Sir R. PEEL could not fix any day on which the sub-
jc:et inigfit be brought forward.
Lord CLEMENTS aske 1, in reference to an order
which had been issued by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-
land, what was meant by a superintending magistrate,
and whet were the intentions of Government with regard
to Ireland ?
Sir T. FREMANTLE replied that, in addition to the
number of stipendiary magistrates, ten gentlemen had
been appointed to the disturbed districts of Ireland, in
order that they might concert together to take the most
effectual means for ermine the constabulary and di.tri•
bitting the force, and Government had thought it ad-
visable to appoint one inaeL;trate to exercise discre-
tionary power over the others. Whatever suggestion
might be made by the whole of them, would be comma-
nica.ted to the Government by these gentlemen. lle
mighe state that the course had been adopted in con
•-
formity with a similar plan pursued in the county of
Tipperary, when that county was in a disturbed state
some years ago. With reference to the last question,
what were the intentions of Government, he could only
state that Government were determined to exercise all
the powers they possessed under the existingconstitution
of the country, and lie hoped that with these powers
they should be able to restore the country to tranquillity.
Lori EBRINGTON asked whether any additional
-stipendiary magistrates had been appointed to Ireland,
and whether those who were removed from one district
to another had been replaced?
Sir T. FREMANTLE replied that severalmagistrates
had been to the peaceful districts to meet the exigencies
of the disturbed counties, but Government had not
thought it necessary to supply their places with others,
becaum it mould be remembered tisat a short time ago a
reduction cif the number of stipendiary magistrates em-
ployed in Ireland had been contemplated.
Mr. BELLEW stated that he believed in that dis-
trict in the county of Cavan where Mr. Booth had been
murdiered, and from which six magistrates had been
withdrawn, there had been a public meeting at which a
resolution had been passed, declaratory of an opinion
that it was net expedient in the present circumstances
of the country to support the Goverument. He wished
to know if any communication had been received in the
matter, and whether a magistrate who had taken an
active part in getting that resolution passed had been
removed from the commission of the peace ?
Sir T. FREMANTLE said he was not aware of
an communication having been received, or any step
being taken, in the matter referred to.
THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY wished to ask a ques-
tien of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, respecting a law that was passed last
seseion on joint-stock companies. By that Act it was
Provided that all joint-stock companies should be re-
qiired to effect a registration. This applied to all
parties resident in the United Kingdom, but there wore
serious doubts whether the Act was applicable to parties
who were members of joint-stock companies in the co-
lonies and foreign countries. He wished to learn from
the Right Hon. Gentleman what explanation he could
give of this matter ? Also, whether the Act was in-
tended to bo applied to chartered companies ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Government was aware of the difficulty to which the
Hon. Gentleman had referred, and the subject had been
brought under the consideration of the highest legal
talent. A case had been drawn up and submitted to
legal consideration, the opinion on which had not yet
been received. Under these circumstances, while the
matter was before the law officers of the Crown, he was
rrot prepared to say anything further on the subject.
THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr.:PAKINGTON said, as the Right: Hon. Baronet
the Secretary for the Home Department had suspended
for the present the law of settlement, and as some mea-
sure was indispensably required on this subject, he wished
to know whether it was the intention of the Government
during the recess to frame another measure ?
Sir J, GRAHAM said that the law of settlement in
some cases worked badly, and required considerable
amendment, but, as some interests in the House were op-
posed to it, he did not see any prospect of effecting any
immediate change in it.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he had received a letter
from Mr. O'Brien, who had been summoned before
that House, and he had also received a petition from the
same Gentleman, with a request that he would present it
in his place in Parliament. He stated in thak petition
that he was partner with Mr. Edwards, solicitor and
attorney-at-law in Devon, by whom an action was
brought against Mr. Parrot (late Member for Totness).
The petitioner added that he had never been consulted
in the case, but that the action had been solely, and
without his sanction, brought by Charles Edwards. He
prayed that he might be discharged at once from further
attendance before that House.
The petition was then read by the Clerk at the table.
Mr. DIVETT said that though he conceived that the
prayer of the petition was an unquestionable one, yet
as that was a matter not for present discussion, he would
move that it should lie on the table.

Sir J. Y. 13I1LaER presented a petition from Charles
Edwards, Bucklersbury, county of Devon, and Thomas
Baker, Limo-street, solicitors, stating, that though they
brqught the action against Mr. Parrot on account of his
having given certain evidence before a Select Committee
of the House of Commons, yet they were not aware it
was any breach of the privileges of the llonse, and that
the action would not lie without that evidence. It prayed
that the House would take these circumstances under
considation, stating that they had not been guilty- of
any infraction of the privileges of the llouse, and if they
11a$. it was quite unintentional.
DIVETTmoved that David Phillips be called to
the`tar.
Sir. Phillips C., es then brought to the bar of the Tlouse.
'tie SMAIC.ER —What is your name ? Mr. Phillips
—David Phillips.,
S.PEAKETZ—Vhat is your profession ? Mr. Phillips
—4 surgeon.
S•i!EAICEIZ—ViThere do you reside ? Mr. Phillips—
At Ptielil,rsbory, in the county of Dev-m.
Min IZEP.!7Are you engeszed in the action of Phil-
rarrot ? Mr. Phillips—Yes, I am.
•.;•PEiIKEIZ,--It is alleged by the petition of the de-
fenViit, that this action is brought against him for words
ie ciitlenee given by him before a Select Committee •
ofthe ffouse of Commons. Is such the case ? Mr.
Phillips-4'ot words used partly before a Committee of
the Tlouie, and partly before the board of guardians at
Tylltues..
SPEAKER—Is The House to understand that the

action is brought against Jasper Parrot for words
spoken by him when giving evidence before a Select
Committee ?—Mr. Phillips begged pardon, cs he had
not heard the question.
The Short-hand Writer then repeated the question.
Mr. Phillips—The action is brought for what he has
stated before the Committee of the House, coupled with
what he stated before the board of. guardians at Totnes.
The SPEAKER—Did you ever see the declaration in
this action? Mr. David Phillips—l have heard it read.
The SPEAKER—Are you aware of the statement
contained in that declaration, in answer to a question
from an Hon. Member of this House, put to Mr. Jasper
Parrot ? Mr. Phillips—l have heard it.
And that Mr. Parrot's answer is contained in that
declaration ?—I have no recollection of the expression.
If I may be allowed to address this Honourable
House, I would beg leave to say that I had
no intention whatever to infringe the privileges of
this House. I do not know what they are ; but if I
have infringed them I am sorry for it, and I have done
everything in my power to prove it ; and all I wished
for was for an opportunity to state this, although my
character has been destroyed, or attempted to be de-
stroyed. I made an application to the poor-law guar-
dians of the union in which I have resided for 24 years,
for the protection of my character, but to no effect ; and
I have been :deprived of my situation by a statement
which Z believe to be false and malicious.
Sir J. Y. BULLER—You state that you had no in-
tention of infringing the privileges of the House by this
proceeding ?—Certainly.
And you now state that you see you have committed
a breach of those privileges ?—Yes.
And, knowing that, are you willing to admit that you
are anxious to express your sorrow for having taken
this proceeding ?—Yes ; but I do hope that this House
will institute some investigation into the injury done my
character.
Are you willing to leave the matter in the hands of
this House ?—I am.
In what Court did you first commence the action ?—I
am not aware.
Did you ever write to any person on the subject of the
defamatory matter ?—I addressed a circular to the Tot •
nes board of guardians, calling upon them to inquire
into the matter, and a copy of that circular I forwarded
to an Hon. Member of this House, Lord Ashley.
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS—Did you receive any answer
from the Noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee ?
—None whatever.
Sir T. WILDE—Did you ever petition this House on
the subject of the alleged slander ?—I have not hitherto
done so.
Mr. COLLETT—Was this circular written previously
or subsequently to the commencement of the action ?
At some time before it.
In answer to a question from Mr. BARRY BALD-
WIN, witness said he could not say to what extent he
had suffered in his private practice.
Sir THOMAS WILDE—Can you point out to the
House any other matter in your declaration with refer-
ence to the evidence of Parrot Witness—l must
consult the document.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that before they
went further in this case, they should in the first place
hare an answer to the question put by the Hon. Member
fur Devon. His suggestion was that the gentleman
should be again called to the bar, and asked if he were
willing to withdraw his action, and to submit himself
unconditionally to the discretion of the House. After
the answer were received, then the House would be in a
condition to proceed, and either to discharge him out of
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to inquire
further into the circumstances of the case.
After a few words from Mr. DIVETT,
Mr. lIINDLEY said that he had always been an ad-
vocate for the maintenance of the privileges of the House,
but he did not think that any gentleman, in giving
evidence before i ;omtnittees, should be allowed to make
statements injurious to the character of other gentlemen.
fie did not think that a Lite Member of that House
would make any such statement, and therefore it was but
right that the House should give Mr. Parrot an oppor-
tunity of justifying or denying it.
Sir It. PEEL was disposed to agree in the propriety
of the course pointed out by the Noble Lord. They had
had evidence given to them that the witness was not
competent to judge of the privileges of that House, and
as he confessed that he did net knew, and meant not to
iiifeinee those privileges, lie
,Sri R. P. thought that
satisfactory enough ; and if the witness were content to
withdraw his action, and express his sorrow for what
had occurred, he thought they need proceed no further
in the matter.
Mr. ROEBUCK said it was very true that the person
who had been called did not know anything of the privi-
leges of the House, and therefore might be discharged
on .his petition. The real party offending was the
attorney who had advised him.—(hear, bear.) lie
therefore thought that the House ought to proceed
against the latter person.
Sir T. WILDE hoped that the House would observe
the broad distinction between the questions whether the
House should submit to the courts of law, and what the
House might think it right to de in a case of this kind.
They must keep the questions perfectly distinct. And
considering the state of this question as it stood at pre-
sent, he thought the better course was, when the person
was called to the bar and made an apology, and when
he submitted entirely to the pleasure of the House, t
discharge him at once, instead of proceeding further
with the strong hand. The witness had shown his de-
sire to submit to the House, and the question now was
whether they should proceed against him as wilfully
guilty of invading the privileges of the House, when his
manner and conduct showed that he was ignorant of those
privileges, and that he was desirous of' submitting to the
authority of the House. He (Sir T. Wilde) thought it
better to accept that submission. He should propose
that the witness be asked if he were disposed to submit
fully to the House and to withdraw his action ; and
having so expressed himself, he proposed further that he
should be discharged. The House knew well that no
attorney could continue the action after the principal had
given it up. His --decided opinion was, that the House
should accept of the witness's apology.
Sir R. 11. INIMIS said that, as far as the gentleman
at the bar was concerned, he fully concurred in the pro-
priety of the course advocated by the Noble Lord the
Member for London and the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Member for Worcester. That sugges-
tion was, that the gentleman at the bar having expressed
his willingness to withdraw his action, his apology be
accepted and he be discharged. But he also agreed with
the remarks of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath,
that he thought the House was bound to proceed much
further with respect to the other two gentlemen. It
was perfectly clear that the action was brought against
a witness who was under the protection of the House,
and so far he was perfectly willing to support the privi-
leges of the House. He therefore hoped that the House
would adopt the suggestion now made, and, on Mr.
Phillips formally renounaing his action, forgive and dis-
charge him.
Mr. DARBY supported the proposition.
Lord HO WIC K said that he had a great objection to
calling individuals to the bar of the House and asking if
they were willing to forego their actions. He thought
the more proper course to adopt would be for the House
to come to some resolution, declaring that the party ag-
grieved by the evidence given before the Committees,
instead of asking protection from the courts of law
should do so from that House. He ought first to petition
that House, and, on consideration, they might either
allow Mr. Phillips, or a person in the same circumstances,
to proceed at law against the aggressing party, or they
might order a committee to inquire into the truth of the
allegations in the petition, and to report to the House
upon the subject. He was of opinion that they ought to
leave Mr. Phillips in the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms until his petition was received and the action with-
drawn, but he could not agree that that gentleman
should be invited to make a concession, a refusal of
which would compromise the dignity of the House. He
should propose that a resolution of the following cha-
racter should be come to:—" That this House shall not
permit persons aggrieved by witnesses' evidence before the
House, or in Committees of the House, to institute legal
proceedings against the witness for such evidence given
before them without permission of the House, and the
person so aggrieved shall be bound in the first instance
to ask such permission." He, for one, was not prepared
to allow the person in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms
to be discharged until his petitions were presented, and
he had submitted himself to the House.
Mr. HUME did not see that they could adopt any
other course, and he was surprised to hear the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) express himself otherwise.
Sir R. PEEL said there was a precedent in point.
In the case of Gee, which happened in 1696, an action
had been brought against certain parties under the pro-
tection of the House. He was summoned to the bar,
and he then admitted that he had acted through igno-
rance, and after submission to the House he was dis-
charged.
Sir G. GREY thought the matter should be deferred
to another day, and then discussed.
Mr. D. DUNDAS thought the principles of fair play
and natural justice had been violated in calling an indi-
vidual to the bar of that House, and then subjecting him
to questions without giving him the aid of counsel. He
found in a precedent cited by the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel), and in many other cases that were
parallel to this, that counsel had been allowed in Com-
mittee, and that a report had afterwards been made to
that House. Why had that course not then been
adopted ?
Mr. DENNISTOUN—You are speaking for the
lawyers.
Mr. DAVID DUNDAS—He was not speaking
for the lawyers—he was speaking fn- justice.
lie repeated, lie was not speaking for the
lawyers, but for the men whom the lawyers pro-
tected. With respect to the case which had been quoted
by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir It. Peel), that of Gee,
he should. if the House would give him permission, read
the petition on that case. The Hon, Member then read
the petition at length. He besought the House not to
take any steps which might afterwards be accounted
rash and unwise, or they would find, in the course of
time, they would have a gradual and a growing crop of
actions. He hoped that the House, before taking any
decisive steps in this matter, woiikl send it before a coer-
irlie, where the person at the Ler would have the op-
portenity of being defereled by conneel. That committee
would then report to the House ; and in this way they
might
(ny preventirams;sirg
t,
harassing
such actions in future, which were not
only
to the parties, but destructive to the dig-
nity of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that after what had fallen
ream his Noble Friend and the Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last, there could be no doubt as to the course which
the House ought to take. He would only more, as an
wiendmieit on the motion of the Hon. Member for
wer, that the word " to-morrow" be inserted in the
resolution

Mr. DIVETT said that probably Mr. Phillips was
the least guilty of the pirties. But if he were ignorant
of the privileges of the House, the attorneys corOd not
be se.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was insufferabl