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

~r

phil'

`~_,-:.

• ~ i

---
SPEAKER—It is alleged by the petition of the de-
u leant,fer that this action is brought against him for words
in evidence given by him before a Select Committee
phflltif
uthe Reece I.
Commons. Is such the case ? Mr.
IPs--P or words used partly before a Committee of
i:ttliic.'s'.uset and partly before the board of guardians at
SPEAKER—Is the House to understand that the
soften is brought against Jasper Parrot for words
c'P°oltele by him when giving evidence before a Select
mmittee ? Mr. Phillips begged pardon, as he had
l'lot heard the qti scion.
,The Short-hand Writer then repeated the question.
Phillips—The action is brought for what he has
steted before the Committee of the House, coupled with
*hat he stated before the board of guardians at Totnes.
te:lhe SPEAKER—Did you ever see the declaration in
le 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
°'s an Hon. Member of this House, put to Mr. Jasper
parrot?
Mr. Phillips—l hase heard it.
And that Mr. Parrot's answer is contained in that
la,.
Ifee ?—I have no recollection of the expression.
I may be allowed to address this Honourable
ni-e°lls!' I would beg leave to say that I had
intention whatevtr to infringe the privileges of
b." 413.11. "6e. I do not know what they are ; but if I
:erylehfirnigngeel them I am sorry for it, and I have done
in my power to prove it ; rnd all I wished
for was for an opportunity to state this, although my
eharacter has been destroyed, or attempted to be de-
tiistrqed, I made an application to the poor-law guar..
• orass of the union in which I have resided for 24 ye..re
t e
h:ue protection of my character, but to no effect ; and
eeve been deprived of m situation y a statement
Retch I believe to he false and y malicious.
Bi:r J. Y. I3ISLLER—You state that you had no i-
te"r,,""it of infriuging the privileges of the House by this
proceeding ?—Certainly.
re a you now state that you see you has e committed
aeh of those privileges ?—Yes.
are anxious
knowing that, are you willing to ac7nit that you
this enxious to express your sorrow for having Hien
Proceeding ; ut I do hope that this House
e institute some investigation into the injury done my
character,
th(akvier You willing to leave the matter in the hands of
y am
ansu whet Court did you first commence the action ?—I
---jettot aware.
a "id 3'ou ever write to any person on the subject of the
tieef"t;at°rY matter ?—I addressed a circular to the Tot •
into --oard of guardians, calling upon them 1) inquiree
to 0 the matter, and a copy of that circular I forward d
1:44. 11 n•
Member of this House, Lord Aehley.
frore'',‘-'• P. VILLIERS—Did you receive any answer
the Noble Lord the Chairmen of the Committee ?
one whatever. s
the L 're NILDE—Did you ever petition this House on
dO~-°B"o3.ect of the alleged slander ?—I have not hitherto
I
c
or see' OLLETT—Was this eircill:.r written previously
At sVecluent'y to the commencement t f the action ?
/ 'ne time before it.
liq'el-a,ilsweer to a question from Mr. BARRY BALD-
had wittiess said he could not say to what extent he
gisutfered in his private pructice.
Ree,reTIIWIAS WILDE—Can you point out to the
pace suY other matter in your declaration with refer-
cot,ult ``)
lithe er:d ace of Parrot ? Witness—l must
document.
te:Pitness was then of-tiered to withdraw.
*eta Lord
dOIIN RUSSELL thought that before they
hoe an in, this me-, they should in the first place
.for /VI 4nswer to the question put by the lion. Member
should °n, His suggestion was that the gentleman
pipi"e again called to the bar, and asked if he were
tine neeito withdraw h's action, and to submit himself
the(la ti'mallr to the:discretion of the House. After
eneten„swer were recei'ved, then the House would be in a
the '"n to proceed,' and either to discharge him out of
furthenst°4 of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to inquire
ee,6v into the circumstences of the case.
er a fee,
M. pi- words from Mr. DIVETT,
moist e 4u-NDLEY said that he had always been an ad-
but '°r the maintenance of the privileges of the House,
eeie e did not think that any gentleman, in giving
stet:sce before I;ommittees, should be allowed to make
tee Pleats injurioue to the character of other gentlemen.
Woulduld not think that a late Member of that House
tight
teai.that the House should give Mr. Parrot an oppor-
sp. of justifying or denying it.
of all. It PEEL was disposed to agree in the propriety
course pointed out by the Noble Lord. They had
to evidence given to them that the witness was not
eeretent to judge of the privileges of that House, and
jeer.° confessed that he did not know, and meant not to
eat.mrge those privileges, he (Sir R. Peel) thought that
traltsatet°rY enough ; and if the witness were content taot
il.,occurrheids,
had iiraw
ib.,,ne matter.
action and express his sorrow for what
he thought they need proceed no further
ricetre' ROEUCK said it was very true that the person
"sd been called did not know anything of the privi-
o'e ?cot* the House, and thereforemight be discharged
alto -'3 Petition. The real party offending was the
thereney who had advised him.—(Hear, hear.) He.
fore 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
eeou
ie should submit to the courts of law, and what the
°use might think it right to d' in a case of this kind.
e° c3' must keep the questions perfectly distinct. And
ttsidering the state of this question as it stood at pre-
sent, he thought the better course was, when the per-eon
Iras called to the bar and made an apology, and when
he submitted entirely to the pleasure of the House, to
discharge him at once, instead ef proceeding further
With the strong hand. The witness had shown his de-
sire to submit to the House, and the qnestion 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
?setter to accept that submission. He should propose
rat the witness be asked if he were disposed to submit
I,4ailyi to the House and to withdraw his action ; and
so expressed lf, he osed th he
311°Ithl he discharged.himse The Hopuserop further
knew well that no
atte
ee "ley could continue the action after the principal had
shout°P. His decided opinion was, that the House
si;.eur
WttSaceept of the witness's ap dogy.
let the 1N..3L1S said that, as tar as the gentleman
Priet "a
c nicerned, he fully concurred in the pro-
-ot. the course advocated by the Noble Lord the
(etuuer
titintleteen
for London and the Right Hon. and Learned
the Member for Worcester. That sugges-
14.°11wwils, that the gentleman at the bar having expressed
ept4lgness to withdraw his action, his apology be
the r and he be discharged. But he also agreed with
that Lemarks of the lion. and Learned Member for Bath,
futon; thought the House was bound to proceed much
Was With respect to the other two gentlemen. It
eevitrfectly clear that the action was brought against
ands:3 es who was under the protection of the House,
le s°
-,,fttr,llo was perfectly willing to support the privi-
leoehr the House. Ile therefore hoped that the House
Philp adopt the suggestion now made, and, on Mr.
Otarg.r renouncing his action, forgive and dts-
bru•
Lem „TARRY supported the proposition. t
Nee -1-O‘VICK said that he had a great objection
.ot.
they Individuals to the bar of the House and askingi
the Itoe,re willing to forego their actions. lie thought
bi eetn .e proper course to adopt would be for the House
grieved some resolution, declaring that the party mg
-
Instead°Y the evidence given before the Com:nittees,
e
8"0111e e°' asking protection from the courts of law ,
toitthileoptwrlttn::spseohfiiiiipmdithat House. He ought first to petition
oorna consideration, they might either
person in the same circumstances,
reigCt eeti at law against the aggressing party, or they
ttliegat?rder a committee to inquire into the truth of the
le 41'°'13 in the petition, and to report to the House
ti:ewrizetsieuhhjiesct. He was of opinion that they ought to
Acros -4-1% Phillips in the' custody of the Sergeant-at-
petition was received and the action with-
shoehf but he could not agree that that geritleman.
Which u° invited to make a concession, a refusal of
taidwoulei coin
promise the dignity of the House.
hHe
Meter PeroPose that a resolution of the following e a-
Pe N. ts"uld be come to:—" That this House shall not
'lO4l- Persons aggrieved by witnesses' evidence before the
tl'ocetee'e, in Committees of the House, to institute legal
efore-,e'nga against the witness for such evidence given
Person "2"ene without permission of the House, and the
"° askaggrieved shall be bound in the first instance
alie"ue° Permission." He, for one, was not prepared
to be the person in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms
haTscharged until his
petitions were presented, and
eir. submitted himself to the House.
otem HUME did not see that they could adopt
Right
HoCerirset and he was surprised to hear the
I Sir elv°leuet (Sir R Peel) express himself otherwise.
the I;„ j'Elq. said. there was a precedent in point.
'''4l of Gee, which happened in 1696, an action
tectieeeen brought against certain parties under the p
slid h't °f the House. e was moned to bar,
reaee* thee
admitted that he hadsuac toil through ignioa l
e
'herged alld after submission to the House he was
d
.
otr
t° GREY thought the matter should be deferred
lleri7r„daert and then discussed.
"I re. "UNDAS thought the principles of fair play
totaleieettet justice had been violated in calling an indi-
te;tl the bar of that House, and then subjecting him
,relineriti°°3 without givine• him the aid of counsel. He
(Sir precedent cited by the Right lion. Baronet
Parall's -reel), and in many other cases that were
Mitte el t° this, that counsel had been allowed in Corn-
that %and that a report had afterwards been made to
ose,
adopted; Why had that course not then been
'4;;Yre'rel), ENNISTOUN—You are speaking for the
114
for e*, DAVID DUNDAS—He was not speaking
10te sne
e lawyers—he was speaking fir justice.
‘et but'tePested he was not speaking for the
tee(e'devs, for the men whom the lawyers pro-
• •
by she
respect to the case wLich had been quoted
he she Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that of Gee,
tthhee
petiiilt?o,aifotahe House would give him permission, read
teeePetitiee that case.' The Hon, Member then read
at length. He besought the House not to
esnY steps which might efterwards be accounted
titeeineci unwise, or they would find, in the course of
seetiee""ey would have a gradual and a growing crop of
`ieeisi' Re hoped that the House, before taking any
teet ve steps in this matter, would send it before a corn-
Porteeee where the person at the bar would have the op-
Would or
„ being defended by counsel. That committee
mightthe report to the House ; and in this way they
°ray Prevent such actions in future, which were not
4ity opntLassing to the parties, but destructive to the dig-
to me House.
4%111 J. RUSSELL said that after what had fallen
speetenr Noble Friend and the Gentleman who
late there could be no doubt as tote course which

the House ought to take. He would only move, as an
amendment on the motion of the lion. Member for
Exeter, that the word " to-morrow" be inserted in the
resolution.
Mr. DIVETT said that probably Mr. Phillips was
the least guilty of the parties. But if he were ignorant
of the privileges of the House, the attorneys could not
be so.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was insufferAble
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 House 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 •
tion, 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 discontinue 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 not come to a division upon
the case before it separated. If the House were to be
satisfied 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 hall been passed in 1696, in the case of Gee, and,
adapting that to the prescnt 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 not 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 IL 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
were about to pursue, and the matter could be got through
in half an hour.

Lord HOWICK 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 all
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 ease, he would move that the parties should attend
at the bar of the House to-morrow.

Mr. WAKLEY objected 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 2—(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 advised 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.
He 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 Fl °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 be a mere question as to the necessity of a postpone-
ment. They had got from the principal the assur-
ance that 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 would be, what should be the degree
of submission necessary ? He would let the House de •
cide with regard to the principal.
Mr. lIUME 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. WILDE said that it was not in the power of
the attorney to prevent a bowl 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 might go on for the costs.
Mr. P. 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. DUNCONIBE 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 heel been guilty of a breach of the pri-
vileges of the House, and were sorry fn. 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-right ; 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 ?—(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. GIIAIAM 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-
-1 dale and Hansard was decided verbally by the House.
The SPEAKER said that in reference to the case

mentioned by the Bight Hon. Baronet, the mode in which
the decision had been come 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 ben consumed upon a s ib-
ject which could have been disposed of in a few minutt s.
Sir R. INGLIS did not feel satisfied with the sta'e-
ment of the parties who had been beforc 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 senFea 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 had
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 awar.' 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. SMITH and Mr.
COLLETT,
Mr. GRANGER 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 thorn 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 LIOWICK 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 (Elowick), 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.
CO MIONS 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 naid 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
to 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 shell 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.
lie 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. He honoured alike the Roman
Catholic and the Dissenter, but he could not, as a
humble, though sincere and conscientious Pro-
testant, 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 felt 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 eonceal 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. 13ut 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 highly 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 Eversham, 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 th- reli-
gious education of the pupil., and he fe- 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. BORTHWICK 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. ACLANI) 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 deelaration :
" 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 Hon. Friend was taking care that there should
be no interference with the religious feelings of the
pupils, he should adopt this amendment, es 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 1)r. 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.