The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-23 00:00:00

RELIGIOUS TESTS.

The Marquis of BREAI3AI:I3AITE-lir;:sented several peti-
.tions from Scotland, playing for the total abolition of religious
tests. In presenting these petitions, perhaps it would not be
out of place for him to express his extreme regret,
that a measure relating to the abolition of religious tests which
had been brought forward in the other House of Parliament,
after having been assented to in the first instance
by the Government, should be opposed by them on its
second consiCeration.— ( Hear, hear.) He confessed
when he considered the policy they had adopted in regard to
Ireland, he could not kelp thinking that they had acted with
some degree of inconsistency tovards Scotland.
Lord STANLEY denied that the Government had been
guilty of any inconsistency. The policy they had'pursued to-
wards Ireland did not, certainly, go to the establishment of new
tests ; but it did not disturb those tests already in existence.
Lord CAMPBELL protested that Government had been
guilty of gross inconsistency towards Scotland,
and dec'ared
that their late opposition to Mr. Rutherford's Bill would have
the effect of turning out Sir David Brewster.
The matter then dropped.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord BROUGHAM said he wished to call their Lordships'
attention to a question of privilege. It was known to their
Lordships that he was one of those who was always found in
a minority of that House—who entirely disapproved upon prin-
ciple of all unfair and forcible exercise of what were called the
privileges or powers of Parliament. He, however, did not
object to their due and proper exercise, when their use was
intended to remove obstacles to the progress of some of their
proceedings; and after the course which had been taken in
both Houses of Parliament but a few days ago, he should have
deemed it to be his bounden duty, even if he were not the
person concerned in this breach of privilege, to bring
the present case before their Lordships. It would
be necessary for him to allude to a paragraph which
had been published in a newspaper, and which took
notice net only of what passed in their Lordship'
House, but also what passed in Select Committees. They
comment on the speeches made, and write the grossest fabri-
cations on the individuals who are engaged in them. The
present question to which he was about to call their attention
was this :—Some months or weeks ago he was informed, by
the Votes of the House, that a Railway Bill had been re-
portedorders. A motion was then made by Mr. Fitzstephen French
against for innumerable breaches of the standing
(a Noble Lord here mentioned the name of anoiher Member)
—then it was not Mr. Fit zstephen French, but another Mem-
ber, who made a motion to rescind the resolution of the
Committee. A small majority having been obtained,
the Bill was allowed to proceed. He (Lord Brougham)
at a subsequent period gave the parties notice not
to throw away their money, as it was probable that errors
would be also found against the standing orders of the House of
Lords. Mr. Fitzstephen French then waited upon him, and
desired to see him on the subject. He gave the gentleman credit
for perfect sincerity and the most patriotic motives for his con-
duct with respect to the Bill, and if he got the House to rescind
the vote, he was sure that he did so upon the purest and most
high-minded principles. He ceased, however, to entertain the
idea that his conduct was so wholly disinterested. He had
found out, in the course of the evidence, that the Directors
had not only taken twenty shares as their qualification, but had
also taken each of them 500 shares above their qualification,
and had sold them so as still to have a number of shares
to the amount of their qualification. The. Gallant
Gentleman who came before them had made from 7001. to 8001.
and other Directors had arse sold their shares, and had profited
to a proportionate extent. fle was surprised to see how the
conduct of two persons had been commented on elsewhere,
while others without number had done precisely the same
thing. Now, there was this difference in the conduct of the
two parties—that the former had no shares in the railway till
after the Parliamentary and other proceedings in connexion
with it were brought to a close; the latter had obtained shares
while the Bills were still pending, and it may be naturally sup-
posed that their votes were not wholly unaffected by their in-
terest. He stepped out of his way a little to revert to the ease
of Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero, believing, as
he did, that they were the victims of what might
he called a Phariaical purity. But he would add that if they had
been guilty to the same extent as other Honourable Neu:hers,
it might afford some pretext for the unmeasured indignation
which had been poured out against them. Mr. French had
applied to him, and toll lirn that lie tlid so in consequence of
the absence of his Noble Friend behind him (Lord Clariri-
carde) who he (Lord Brougham) was led to believe was the
patron of the Bid. The answer, however, which he gave him
was simply this, "We allow no canvass on private Bills." A
Commfttee had been appointed to inquire into all the merits of
the case. Mr. Smith, a parliamentary agent against the Bill,
came to him, but he t Lord B; ouglism ) refused to have any
communication with him. He had no communication with Mr.
Croucher, nor did he mate any use whatever of the written
communications which he had read. One he laid urns the
table of the House, the other he put in his pocket and had not
read up to this hour. The Noble and Learned Lord then read
from the Times newspaper a report of the speech of Mr. F.
French, which had been delivered in the House of Commons
on the previous evening, in relation to the conduct of Lord
Brougham on the Committee appointed to inquire into the
islr• Pym,
edithe attack of Mr. French as foul, libellous, and
on the Irish Great Western Railway. He
untrue. He
He had only done his duty, that which he was bound
to do, and could not consistently with his duty avoid doing.
He was not a shareholder in any railway, and was actuated by no
other motive than that of a faithful and conscientious discharge
of his duty. The only railway ever he had a share in was 20
years ago, when he was politically connected with the town of
Liverpool, and took a few shares by way of patronising the
undertaking, but sold them off as soon as he could get them off
his hands.—(A laugh.) Why the question was perfectly ap-
posite to the inquiry, and the Committee would not have
been performing tneir duty had they neglected to put it. The
same reply might be given to the charge that he asked if the
shares were at a discount. To be sure he did ; but the question
was put in a purely inquisitorial capacity, as they were bound
by the orders of that House to put it. The next accusation
was that "he suppressed evidence which disproved the case he
wished to establish." That asssrtion was untrue, but while
untrue, it was impossible; and if the man who made it had not
been in such a fury as to have lost his reason, ho must have
seen the absurdity of supposing that a Member could, in his
individual capacity, have practised such a course, had he desired.
But the whole was a precious jumble, and a precious falsifica-
tion. Well, after going on some time and discovering the
practices of the Company,
" Oh," said they, what has been done
in the Dublin andGalway is what has been always pursued
in other Companies." To prove this, a Mr. Joseph Parkes, au
attorney, well-known about Parliament, was called, bat he
only proved that he had no connexion whatever with the rail-
way. " But, said he, "it is frequently done in the London
and York, the Western, and all other Companies." They
asked him if he had personal knowledge of that fact—had
be ever been present at the time of making allotments,
granting scrips, and making certificates. Well, it appeared,
he had never even appeared before a Committee, had never
been sworn—and they, finding that he knew nothing, and that
if sworn fifty times he could give no useful evidence,
declined swearing him also.—( Hear.) But, though
Mr. Joseph Parkes could give no evidence in chief opposite to
the case, on cross-examination it was elicited that he knew
that the London and York Com;n v had acted in the same
manner. So they sent for A1ra.4111:7, the seoretary of
that Company, and examined him ; and Le (I,titti
Brougham) never knew of anything equal to the contrast be-
tween the proceedings of the two bodies; he never saw, nor
in his imagination could he conceive, anything more widely
different. So far from the York Company following the
course complained of, they
never, in one instance, had
adopted it. In the Galway line, 970 applications for shares
had been made, only 111 of which offered any reference
whatever, while the London and York never received a single
application without one or more references attached. But
when they got these 111, what did they do with them?
Mark—the London and York had sent a man round the coun-
try,intoof t
etplipieolneslehtdsia:ruaotcntieeur
et ooff
the every
ee rGypaari
parties
to ees:
and o,f
that
tsei
f29t,hel
y 4 werewe,n
rents
they
received
; butmonth,
out
found to be false, fictitious, or paup.rs' clai:ns; and therefote
Company, just 29 were examined,
to whom an allotment was made, was a pauper woman called
ft
uh
retsb,
es tro ptibefedy s hsobrotu,
dfe a
frairieg, e
worse s 1),
Margaret Meredyth. She had 248 :shsres accorded her, and
the reason Hesseltine gave for considering her a fit person to
invest property to such an amount in railway schemes was,
that she resided at Lower Tooting, Surrey. The woman her-
self, when askedif the signature to the application was her own,
replied she did not know, for she could not read.—
(Laughter.) And, on cross-examination, this innocent woman
asserted that neither could she write.—( Loud laughter.) Put
among Mr. Hesseltine's certificates for solvency was one from
a man called Pecton, whose actual existence was afterwards
disproved, and another from a man called Baldwin, who had
been for the last fourteen years in the West Indies. Again,
when Mr. Briden was asked how he had ascertained the vali-
dity of the references, or the respectability of the referees—Oh,
he had trusted to Mr. Harrison, and when Mr. Harrison was
asked how he had executed his trust—Oh, he had committed it
to Hesseltine, and Hesseltine in like manner commissioned
Lew, and that man, it appeared had taken the names home and
searched the character of each reference in so short a space of
time, that it was computed twelve seconds were allowed to each
case. He wished all business could be settled in so short a
time, it would materially expedite the discussions in that
House.—( A laugh.) Such was the difference in the conduct
of the two Companies respecting their mode of transacting
business of this nature, and yet, forsooth, that highly respect-
ableand York, was accused body, the London
same disreputable practices as the Dublin and Galway ! As to
the charge of his having suppressed evidence which would have
disproved the case he wished to establish, this was not only
not true, but the very reverse of the truth. Why, May gave
damning evidence against the Company,
and the more his
statements could be suppressed the bitter it would have been
for theirease. With regard to the statement that he had put
the calumniating question to a witness, whether " he had ever
been a candidate for a lucrative employment in a rival company,"
why, where was the calumny in asserting, or where tke dis-
grace in having so solicited employment.? But it so happened
that the accusation—if accusation it was—was a fact, and as-
serted in the identical handwriting of the petitioner ? And as
to General Hawkins, he cut a very bad figure in the Commit-
tee, though he left it most perfectly satisfied with their conduct,
both towards himself and the Bill. Those were the facts, and he
only wished to add a few words respecting its publication in the
papers of the day. It was a very singular account, and rem•
dered more so by the extraordinary accuracy which it affected
in detailing every single particular connected with the case.
Indeed he doubted if the report, as given, was heard at all.
Some accounts stated that the party spoke in so low a tone as to
be perfectly inaudible in the gallery, yet another professed to