I beg to direct the notice of the House to a matter which, being of a somewhat personal nature, they will, I hope, excuse my directing their attention to it. The House may remember, that on the 2nd of May, I referred to the circumstances of the postponement of a Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. I did so in this way—I said that the course was taken by him not at the request of the Government; that it was his own act, and the result of no compromise on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department with the New Zealand Company. A report has been officially promulgated by the New Zealand Company, by which it appears that some parties have drawn a different inference. I will stale exactly what took place. The hon. and learned Gentleman postponed his Motion in the first instance, in consequence, as he stated, of having had some communication with Lord Stanley. I made no observation at the time, not being aware what had passed between them; but, in the course of the next day, I asked my noble Friend whether that postponement took place in consequence of any request on his part, or in consequence of any compromise being entered into with the New Zealand Company. My noble Friend assured me it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's own act, and that no compromise had taken place. In order that there should be no mistake in the matter, I sent the following note to the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, dated May 2, 1845:—

I rise, under circumstances of very great embarrassment, to make a statement on a matter which involves private communications between the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham), for whom I entertain a most sincere respect, and myself. I must say, that throughout the whole matter the conduct of that right hon. Gentleman has been the most friendly to myself personally, and his proceedings have been conducted in a spirit of the greatest fairness. I believe his sole object is to promote the public service; and I should therefore be exceedingly sorry that any statement of mine should be in any way annoying to him. I am not aware, however, that there is any ground for entertaining such an apprehension. Perhaps the House will allow me to state some circumstances connected with this matter. I had one or two interviews with Lord Stanley and the right hon. Home Secretary, and I proposed an arrangement by which I thought the affairs of the Colony of New Zealand might be satisfactorily settled. After an interview with the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, I sent Lord Stanley my proposal in writing in greater detail; and at the same time said that, as the Motion of which I had given notice was coming on on the following Tuesday, it was important that the Government should adopt some line of conduct by that time. A day or two afterwards the right hon. Baronet spoke to me on the subject. He said that Lord Stanley had received my second letter; but that he was sorry to say, there was a preliminary objection to entertaining my proposal at all—which was, that I had proposed in my letter, as a sine quâ non, that the proposal should come from the Government, and not from the Company. The right hon. Baronet considered that the proposal should come from the Company, and not from the Government. He also said, there was another obstacle to proceeding with the negotiation, which was my Notice of Motion standing upon the Books of the House of Commons; that, if they entered into the negotiation with that Notice standing upon the Books, it would seem as if they wished to avert the discussion of the question. He also said, that one of two courses must be taken—that the Motion must either be withdrawn or disposed of; and that it remained for me to determine whether I would withdraw my Notice of Motion or bring it on, have the discussion, and renew the negotiation afterwards. The right hon. Baronet was good enough to give me an assurance that my proposal would be considered in a spirit of perfect candour and fairness by the Government; and he begged me to state what had passed to the Directors of the New Zealand Company, and get from them a proposal to renew the negotiation in an official form. Upon this statement, that the arrangement we had proposed was under the calm and fair consideration of the Government, I told some of my hon. Friends and Colleagues in the direction that it seemed to me it would be most unwise in us to withdraw from a negotiation so happily commenced; that nothing ought to be allowed to stand in the way of an arrangement; and that, therefore, the Company should send in their proposal in an official form, and that I ought to withdraw my Notice of Motion. I could not suppose this could be construed into a compromise. My own inference was exactly in accordance with the state- ment contained in the letter of the hon. Gentleman on the other side (Mr. G. W. Hope). I never imagined any person could construe such an arrangement into a shrinking on the part of Government from the discussion of the question; or that any one could suppose it to be a compromise entered into by the Government to get rid of my Motion. It was understood that my Notice of Motion was withdrawn, simply that the negotiation might proceed; and that if the negotiation was not brought to a conclusion, I should subsequently submit my Motion to the House. I must say, that the withdrawal of the Motion was my spontaneous act, in accordance with the wishes of my brother directors, to promote the progress of the negotiations. That was the impression which, as it appeared to me, the letter of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. W. Hope) conveyed. I therefore gave him the frank answer he has read, and which I thought he was justified in stating to the House. I am prepared to stand by that statement; and I say, that my Notice of Motion was not withdrawn at the request of the Government; but simply because I was determined that the chance of a favourable settlement should not be averted by adhering to the Notice, which, it was clear, was an insuperable obstacle. It was clear that the Government could not freely go on with the negotiation while that Notice of Motion was before the House; and I was induced to withdraw it simply from a regard to the interests of the Company and of the public, which were involved in the arrangement. Let me say one word more, as some remarks have been made upon the negotiation. The only assurance conveyed to me on the subject was, that the Government were prepared to consider the matter in a spirit of calmness and deliberation; and that Lord Stanley was not bound as to the decision he should adopt, but that after fair consideration he would decide as he thought proper. The arrangement which was proposed, after receiving the full consideration of the Government, has not come to a successful issue. I exceedingly regret it. I have heard the reasons for their decision—reasons which they consider to be insuperable. I do not agree in that opinion; but I must fairly and explicitly state, to prevent all misapprehension, that I have nothing to complain of in the conduct pursued by the Government on this subject.

This conversation is, I believe, rather irregular; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I may perhaps be pardoned if I ask the attention of the House for a few moments. I rise to corroborate every part of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard as to that portion of the transaction to which he has referred with which I was concerned. At the same time, I must say I think it an unfortunate circumstance that communications which take place privately between hon. Members of this House, should subsequently be made matter of public discussion. I do not say this from any personal feeling; but because I think that private communications on public affairs between Members of this House, even sitting on opposite sides of the House, should be entirely confidential, and that what passes under the seal of strict confidence should not be made public. My belief is, that these private communications, conducted with good faith, frequently facilitate the transaction of public business, and are conducive to the public good. I received last night, from a noble Lord a Member of this House, designating himself the Chairman of the Secret Committee of the New Zealand Company, a communication which I must confess greatly astonished me. That noble Lord states, that minutes were taken from time to time of all the conversations between the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard and myself; and that there was a fixed determination on the part of the Directors to publish these minutes; and all that was offered to me was an opportunity of writing to the New Zealand Company to contradict any portion of those statements with which I might be dissatisfied. There was no assurance that any remonstrance of mine would restrain the publication of these minutes; the only offer made to me was, that my letter should be published with the minutes. I have taken no note of those conversations; I conceived them to be perfectly confidential, as they have been treated by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. The frank and candid manner in which that hon. and learned Member made his statement relieves him entirely from the imputation of having any share in the transaction. I only wish to add one observation, in addition to those made by that hon. Gentleman, as to the origin of the negotiation. We chanced to sit writing at the same table, in the immediate neighbourhood of this House, immediately after the last debate on this subject. A conversation arose between us as to what had occurred. This interchange of our opinions led the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he would like to have a conversation with me elsewhere upon the entire case. I said, being a friend of Lord Stanley, and desirous if possible to promote an amicable adjustment of this matter with reference to all the interests concerned, I was quite willing to have another conversation with him. The hon. and learned Gentleman subsequently sought an opportunity of conversing with me, and out of that conversation arose the negotiation that subsequently took place. During the whole of that negotiation never did I contend on the part of the Government, that the progress of the negotiation should interfere with the discretion of the New Zealand Company, or of the hon. and learned Member, as to the course they might deem it expedient to take with reference to a discussion in this House. In fact, it was on the understanding that the negotiation should not preclude any such discussion, that I sanctioned it.

said, in the absence of the noble Lord (Lord Ingestre) to whom the right hon. Home Secretary had referred, he might be allowed, perhaps, to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman said he had received from that noble Lord, as the Chairman of the Secret Committee of the New Zealand Company, a letter referring to certain minutes kept by the Secret Committee, which were sent to the right hon. Baronet, in order that he might make any remarks he chose upon them before they were communicated to the shareholders. It would, of course, be in the recollection of the House, that a report appeared in the newspapers of that morning of what took place at the meeting which was held yesterday; but the minutes to which reference was made were not laid before the Directors. The minutes were merely kept for the use of the Secret Committee, and could not be used against the right hon. Baronet. The Committee were appointed by the directors as a Secret Committee to act during the negotiations, and as soon as those negotiations terminated, the Secret Committee were to report to the Directors for their approbation. In making that report they would, of course, be bound to state the grounds on which they might justify the reception or rejection of the proposition of the Government. The Secret Committee determined that minutes ought to be kept, and they took the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard with perfect confidence, relying, as they implicitly did, upon his penetration, accuracy, high honour, straightforwardness, and simplicity of mind; in addition to this, he was bound to say that there was nothing in the conduct of the right hon. Baronet which was not perfectly consistent with the zeal which he always evinced in the public service, and the high character which he had always maintained.

rose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, respecting the committal to prison and subsequent release of a man named Dean, who had been convicted in Berkshire of selling pheasants and pheasants' eggs. That unfortunate man, it appeared, had been committed to Reading gaol for four months. Now, he wished to know whether they had at the Home Office copies of his conviction? whether the right hon. Baronet had taken that conviction into his consideration? whether he thought it legal? and whether, in point of fact, the man had not been released?

said, that taking into consideration the consequences that arose out of convictions of this nature, it was a rule at the Home Office not to go into the merits of those convictions with any view to disturb them, otherwise than upon very special grounds, unless when it appeared upon the face of the proceedings that there had been allegations of distinct offences, when in fact there was only one, or when cumulative penalties were inflicted. The case to which the hon. Member referred had been gone into, and one month's imprisonment, it appeared, had been imposed upon Dean for one of the offences charged, and three months for the other, and fines imposed upon him, amounting in the whole to 10l. 11s., which, if paid on the instant, would have relieved him from further imprisonment. As it appeared that he had been subjected to two terms of imprisonment, the Crown remitted one of them, namely, the imprisonment for one month.

inquired if the right hon. Baronet had any objection to producing the record of the case?

said, that at the Home Office they had nothing except the conviction and the order for committal.

said, that the conviction was illegal—that the penalties were cumulative and excessive. It appeared that Dean had suffered only one week's imprisonment, and that the public were indebted to the hon. Member for Athlone for his release, that gentleman having taken upon himself to pay the penalty. He thought that the buyers of poached game were greatly in fault, and that, instead of doing anything to prevent poaching, they were only too ready to encourage the supply of too great quantities of that sort of game.

said he was not in that part of the country at the time when the occurrence in question took place.

observed, that there was a strong distinction between the case of a man taken in the fact of committing an offence against the game laws, and that of a man who merely committed offences, and was subjected to cumulative penalties in the manner that had happened in Dean's case.

said, that the man whose case had been referred to petitioned the Crown for mercy, and one portion of his imprisonment had been remitted.

wished merely to state to the House that the man having been proceeded against in the name and at the suit of Prince Albert, he (Mr. Collett), entertaining strong opinions upon the subject of the game laws, wishing to see those laws relaxed, deeply commiserating the condition of the poor man who had suffered this injurious imprisonment; he, on the 24th instant, wrote the following letter to Dean:—

"I observe by The Times of to-day, that you have been sent to prison and to hard labour for four months, at the suit of Prince Albert, for having offered to sell some pheasants and some pheasants' eggs. As I disapprove of game laws, and of all proceedings under them, I will release you by paying the fine of 10l. 11s. if you will let me know how I can forward it to the proper quarter. Deeply commiserating what I consider an act of tyranny and injustice inflicted upon a poor man. I am, &c."

Subsequently, he sent down his servant to Reading, and had the money paid. Dean's daughter-in-law, when replying to his letter, stated, that the man who had been thus convicted of poaching was treated as a felon, that he had been placed in solitary confinement, compelled to wear a felon's dress, employed in picking oakum and pumping water, and that he could not eat the food which had been supplied to him. In The Times of this morning an article had appeared respecting Dean's imprisonment, and he intended to send to the editor the letter which he had just read, accompanied by one from himself.

rose to bring under the notice of the House a totally different subject. Some time since an occurrence took place in the island of Guernsey, in consequence of the conduct of the Controller General, a functionary whose office was somewhat analogous to that of Solicitor General in this country. It arose out of the case of a peculiar assault made upon a lady in that island. That lady subsequently made an application to the other law officer of the Crown, and thereupon the matter was brought before the Royal Court, and proceedings were taken at the instance of the Procureur General, when it was determined by the Court, upon the circumstances of the accusation, that the party accused had been guilty of no crime. In Guernsey, by rather a peculiar process, the whole matter went on in secret—it was a secret inquiry; and the Court having determined that there was no ground for a criminal proceeding, the complaining party was informed that she might bring a civil action. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had any information to give the House on the subject—whether any steps had been taken by the Government to remedy the wrong, and to prevent its recurrence?

had received from the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey (we understood) a statement in substance the same as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just made to the House. That statement directly impugned one of the law officers of the Crown; it was referred to that law officer to give a full explanation of his conduct. At the present moment the accusation rested on the statement only of one party; the officer had not as yet obtained any opportunity of making an explanation; and he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman, admitting the presumption of innocence in favour of an accused party, would wait until that expiation had been given.

said, there was an accusation also against one of the jurats, who were equivalent to judges in this country. He was a relation of the party criminated, and was charged with tampering with the judges.

said, the letter from the Lieutenant Governor contained two accusations; one against a law officer of the Crown, and another materially involving the administration of justice, which required more mature consideration on the part of the Government with respect to the means of remedy.

observed, that the judge was removable by the Crown, and wished to know whether any inquiry had been made by the right hon. Gentleman?

replied, that the accusation appeared to him to embrace the large and entire question of the administration of criminal justice. A matter so grave and important, the hon. and learned Member would see, required the most careful consideration.

Before the hon. and learned Solicitor General proceeds to move the Order of the Day with respect to the question of Privilege, I think it proper that I should make some inquiry of him as to the course he means to pursue, and state what has occurred to me, and to some friends of mine, Members of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the name of the Committee, presented a Report, which consists, I may say, of two parts; the one with regard to the levy of the execution which will take place on Monday next, as to which the Committee thought it necessary that the House should interfere without delay; the other part stating that the Committee have come to a resolution that it is advisable to proceed by a writ of error in the superior court. It does not appear to me that the first part of the Report presented to the House has any other object than to enable the House, if they so think fit, to interpose to prevent the levy of the execution on Monday next. With respect to the second part, namely, the advice to proceed by a writ of error, the Committee state that they wish to make a more detailed Report to the House. While I think the Solicitor General was justified, being called upon, in proposing that the Report should be taken into consideration to-day, I must express a hope that he will not proceed to move any Resolution as to the writ of error. I think that this is due to the Committee, who after spending a good deal of time in deli- beration, made this Report to enable the House to take any steps they may think fit with regard to the execution on Monday. I think the House should take time till we meet again; and it will be for the advantage of the House in the matter of the writ of error, that we should have any detailed Report of information or argument which the Committee might make. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, agreed that that course would be more desirable than that the Solicitor General should immediately propose, without further consideration, any Resolution to the House on this subject. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this suggestion, and whether it be necessary to do anything more than move the postponement of the consideration of this Report to some future day, such as he shall think most convenient; which will allow any Member of the House who may differ from the Committee to propose any measure he may think necessary for the immediate interposition of the House to prevent the levy of damages on Monday next.

I certainly think it was the impression of the Committee that it would be premature to call on the House to express an opinion on that important question, whether or no a writ of error should be moved for against the judgment. I think it would be very desirable that the House should have more notice before they affirm such a Motion; and also that the reasons which induced the Committee to come to that conclusion should be laid before us prior to taking any step which is not absolutely necessary. It was our duty to apprize the House of certain proceedings which might be taken possibly on Monday next, in order that the House might have the opportunity of interposing if they thought necessary. But with respect to whether they should interpose, I think it would be highly desirable not to come to that decision without further consideration.

It is choosing one evil less than the other, which is the only alternative. The House is placed in a situation in which it might either immediately determine or permit the plaintiff to levy his damages. It is certainly not desirable that the party should be permitted to levy damages until he obtains the full success of his suit. But the allowing damages to be levied, in no respect interferes with the complete validity of the writ of error for the reversal of the judgment; and if that reversal take place it will be a judgment of restoration, calling on the party to refund all he has gained. I dare say the House will not expect that that judgment, if it be ever pronounced, should be very productive; but it has struck me as a very important point for the House to consider, that the disadvantage of allowing the party to levy his damages bears no proportion to the disadvantage of a hasty decision upon this question. I think the writ of error a proceeding of so much importance, that the House should be put in possession of the reasons of the Committee bearing on that step. I hope I am not acting improperly in saying that I entirely dissent from the propriety of that course; but I think it of the utmost consequence that the Report of the Committee should be submitted to the House before the subject is discussed.

wished to ask his hon. and learned Friend this question. Suppose the money was levied by the execution, and no writ of error was brought, the House would be left without a shadow of remedy. If he understood his hon. and learned Friend, his opinion was, that as for their going into the Court of Queen's Bench, it was all very well, it was a mere service of notice; but if you had a writ of error in the Court of Exchequer, you admitted their jurisdiction, because you demanded a writ of error to say whether their judgment was wrong. So that he feared they would find themselves in this difficulty, that they would have allowed the officer to pay the money or to go prison, without remedy for the evil.

I will only notice what fell from my hon. and learned Friend with reference to the question of an immediate writ of error. It will be brought, of course, if the House determine it to be an expedient step to take, quite uninfluenced by the circumstance of the damages having been previously levied. The Act of Parliament, which recently passed to prevent writs of error being brought for purposes of delay, has enacted that no writ of error should be a stay of execution, except the party gives bail, undertaking to pay it if the judgment be affirmed; thus securing the plaintiff in recovering damages if it should be affirmed. A writ of error, unless, the judgment be stayed by express order of Court, on application made and came of error shown—has consequently ceased to be a stay of execution. But a writ of error for the purpose of impugning the validity of the judgment, is not affected by the levy of the execution. The only evil is, that it is for the time an apparent acquiescence on the part of the House; but when it is understood that that is not a direct acquiescence, but merely a forbearance to act until time can be gained to consider the matter further, no misapprehension can arise on that ground. My hon. and learned Friend was in error if he supposed that I wished the matter to pass without discussion, or without its being in some way or other brought under the consideration of the House. But if it be discussed now whether the writ of error shall be brought or not, the House will be involved in a lengthy discussion without having the reasons of the Committee before it.

Sir, I am very sorry to differ from my hon. and learned Friend below me as to the proper steps to be adopted in the present state of the question. This House has implicated its own privileges by making an appeal on that subject to a court of law, which I always was of opinion, and always asserted my opinion, is not competent to deal with our privileges in any shape whatsoever. The House is now getting deeper and deeper into a mess. I say that notice ought to be immediately given of the determination of this House to punish severely whoever shall attempt to arrest or to levy an execution upon our officer. In what does this proceeding originate, Sir? In nothing less than in your warrant, which I shall take leave to read:—

begged to remind the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) that the question before them was, whether at its rising the House should adjourn until Monday next; and consequently the discussion was altogether irregular. The hon. Member had exhibited a considerable degree of warmth, and had shown a very praiseworthy readiness to vindicate by his own personal interference the authority of the Chair, and the privileges of the House—perhaps the hon. Member would even be so bold as to take the Lord Chief Justice into custody? [Mr. Hume: So I would, if he comes here.] Whatever course the hon. Member might be disposed to take, he would find ultimately that the House stood alone in its contest with the constituted authorities of the country, and that it claimed privileges which no other power in the kingdom ever pretended to assert; privileges which were utterly unknown to the Constitution, and incompatible with the liberties of England. He must, however, repeat the observation which he had made; namely, that the discussion was irregular under the present circumstances.

I think the hon. Baronet has not exactly understood the object of this discussion. If I understood my noble Friend the Member for London, he advised that the discussion on this subject should be postponed for the present, inasmuch as it was not necessary that there should be any discussion unless some Gentleman was prepared to move that some actual step should be taken towards resistance. My hon. and learned Friend near me, if I understood him, acquiesced in the proposal of postponing the discussion, not as the hon. Member for Montrose supposes, because he is prepared to depart from the course he formerly recommended, of requiring this House to defend its privileges, and not to trust to other tribunals, but to its own powers. Because, my hon. and learned Friend says, assuming that the House means to defend its privileges, we ought to have further time to consider what steps should be taken with that view. He sees the evil of allowing those damages to be actually paid; but he says it would be a less evil, and open to greater objections, to take any inconsiderate step. What I understand my hon. and learned Friend to say is this, that although we allow the damages in the first instance to be paid, still, if the House take his advice, excellent as I think it, and determine to maintain its privileges, it will be equally in our power to make the party who has received the damages refund what he has obtained, and punish all the parties who had assisted him in infringing the privileges of this House, as it is now to take those strong steps which may be necessary to resist the levy of the damages. My hon. and learned Friend says it is inexpedient that we should take those strong steps to resist the levy of the damages, unless we are prepared, having embarked in that contest, to go through with it. On a former occasion we made the great, and, I am afraid, the fatal mistake of embarking in a contest which we had not the nerve to carry out. My hon. and learned Friend wishes to avoid the repetition of that fatal mistake, and, therefore, he says to the House, I do not counsel you to abandon your privileges; I still remain of opinion that you have the power, and it is your duty to defend them; but seeing what passed before, I advise you to postpone discussion on the subject. We admit it is an evil to allow damages to be levied; but still it is a less evil than taking any inconsiderate step. Allow damages to be levied; wait till the Report of the Committee is before you; and having seen that Report, determine deliberately what is the course you ought to pursue. In my view, the advice of my hon. and learned Friend is the best and wisest; and I will, therefore, also press the Solicitor General not to make any specific Motion on the present occasion, but to allow the Report to be taken into consideration hereafter.

I entirely concur in the view that it is expedient we should postpone the consideration of this question until we have before us a full and complete Report from the Committee to which we have confided the task of considering the present question, and recommending the course which ought to be adopted. The hon. Member for Montrose has asked why there has not been a complete Report presented to the House. He says, we have had ample time—a week — to prepare our Report. Certainly, if we had the advantage of the industry and diligence of the hon. Member for Montrose we might, by possibility, have been able to frame that Report; but we had it not. He is not at all aware of the infinite pains and research which are requisite to be employed before we can present such a Report to the House as would be satisfactory either to the House or to the Members of the Committee. And this I must say, that in the midst of numerous other important claims on their time, the Members of the Committee have been most faithful and diligent in performing the duty cast upon them by the House, and have been as expeditious in their proceedings as was consistent with propriety, and with a regard to what the House would expect from them. Under these circumstances, I certainly agree with the suggestion made from the other side, and I shall not propose any Resolution to be taken on the Report of the Committee. If any hon. Member thinks proper to say that the time has now arrived when it is necessary for the House to come to a decision, and will make a definite proposition for resisting the levy of the damages, it will be competent for him to propose a Motion, and the House may decide in his favour. But, for my part, I shall accede to the suggestion offered, and when the Order of the Day is moved, I shall most certainly move its postponement to Monday week.

said, he wished only to say one word. He begged, hereafter, it might not be supposed that he had concurred in this recommendation of postponing the discussion, from an impression that there were no difficulties or objections in the way of permitting the execution of the levy. There were; but he said these were much less than in taking any inconsiderate step. The hon. Member for Montrose complained of the want of attention on the part of the Committee. Certainly, he could say that every hour the Committee sat they had had the benefit of his hon. and learned Friends the Solicitor General's attendance; and he would only say, for his own part, that he had allowed no private business to interfere with the duty of being present at its sittings.

thought the hon. Member for Montrose very ungrateful to the hon. and learned Members, who, in addition to their other labours, had devoted three or four hours a day to the consideration of this important question, besides other researches out of the Committee. He thought the hon. Member for Montrose had very unfairly imputed to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir T. Wilde) a desire to shrink from the vindication of those privileges, on recommending a Resolution which he was aware was attended with difficulties. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not refused the Committee his powerful assistance in vindicating the privileges of that House; he had given them the advantage of his extensive learning in their deliberations, and when a re- commendation was made from which he dissented, he made suggestions which might mitigate the evils he apprehended. He acknowledged with gratitude the value of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assistance.

said, it was only due to the Committee to say that they applied themselves to the consideration of the subject before them at the earliest moment after they were furnished with the necessary papers. It was impossible for them to offer any opinion upon the question before them until they had the Speaker's warrant and the pleadings, together with the judgment of Court. They met at the earliest possible hour—12 o'clock—and sat up to the latest moment allowed for their proceedings. He did feel it due, in particular, to the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, to say, that he had not only shown great generalship in the mode of dealing with the question, but, also, that he had devoted a considerable portion of his time out of the hours of the Committee most usefully to promote its objects. He entirely concurred in the propriety of the course recommended to the House, namely, of not coming to a decision under the present circumstances of the case. But, at the same time, if any hon. Member thought that the House ought, before Monday, to come to some resolution to resist the levy threatened upon their officer, the present was the time for adopting that course. But, if the House should act otherwise, it would be probably the better course, as then the Committee would have had time to furnish them with a Report containing the precedents and other materials requisite to enable them to come to a right and becoming decision.

said, in explanation, that he was the last man in the House disposed to cast any blame upon the Committee, or upon his hon. and learned Friend below him; but the question had appeared to him to be of the simplest nature as regarded the privileges of the House, namely, whether they were prepared to defend or to abandon them? The hon. and learned Member for Worcester was, in particular, the very first man who advised the House not to take that course which they had since had so much reason to regret. His own mind, however, was made up. He only blamed the hon. and learned Member for having recourse to expediency, instead of meeting the difficulty boldly. He did not think the Committee were the best judges of the proper course to be taken, and therefore he should move, as an Amendment on the Question before the House, the following Resolution:—

"That the House will deem it a high breach of its Privileges on the part of any Person, who shall dare to levy Damages upon one of their servants for having obeyed the Speaker's Warrant."

In taking this course, he begged to say, that he should be extremely sorry to be supposed to be doing anything which would not tend more to maintain the privileges of the House, than would be effected by again pleading to the action in the form of a writ of error.

suggested to the hon. Member the propriety of suffering the Motion before the House to be disposed of, and of bringing his Resolution forward as an Amendment upon the Motion, when the Order of the Day for considering the question of Privilege was read.

moved, that the further consideration of the Report be postponed until Monday week, June 9th.

said, that before the hon. Member for Montrose brought his Resolution forward, he would suggest to him the propriety of listening to the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Worcester. If the Resolution were put, and a division ensued, there were no hopes of its being carried. If there were, he would heartily join in it—no one sooner. But as it was not probable it would be agreed to, nothing but mischief would result from moving it.

said, that if the Resolution of the hon. Member was put and negatived, how could the House hereafter punish any persons for doing that which they deliberately refused to interfere in preventing from accomplishing?

For the very reason assigned by the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, I hope the hon. Member for Montrose will persevere in pressing his Resolution to a division.

was perfectly well aware that there existed in that House a party whose wish was to destroy all their ancient privileges; but the time was come at which they must interfere to vindicate those privileges; and therefore, in conformity to his determination, he begged to move as an Amendment on the Motion before the House the following Resolution:—

"That this House, adverting to the Resolutions heretofore passed, resolve that they will deem all Persons guilty of a Breach of its Privileges who shall act in the levying any Execution upon the Judgment which has been obtained in the Cause of 'Howard against Gossett,' referred to in the Report presented to this House yesterday."

seconded the Resolution.

said, there were two ways of proceeding in the case, one by sending the Officer of the House with a proper authority to notify the consequences of further proceedings to the parties, the other by issuing a warrant from the Chair for the apprehension of all who should venture to take any measures against their office.

still remained of opinion that it was of such extreme importance that the House should not pronounce any opinion upon the question at present, that he begged leave to move that the debate be adjourned to Monday week.

said, that until the noble Lord's Amendment were decided, they could come to no decision upon the real question. It was not competent for them to move the previous question upon that Amendment. The question put was, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. If that were affirmed, they would be in the same position as if the question were put upon the hon. Gentleman's Motion. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, and the noble Lord's Amendment, would therefore be the same.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet that, technically speaking, there was no distinct difference between them; but (said the hon. Gentleman) regarding the impression upon the public there will be a difference, and to that impression I attach great importance. Those, who, with me, are anxious to maintain the privileges of this House, have already suffered extremely in the struggle by misapprehension on the part of the pub-. lic. There would on t hat account, I conceive, be a serious danger to the public generally, if we refused to agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose; and I, for one, am not prepared to agree to it. If we negative it, the public generally will feel that the majority of this House refuse to assert that those who are concerned in these proceedings against the Sergeant-at-Arms are guilty of a gross and flagrant breach of the privileges of this House; and yet, I apprehend, that the majority of the House are still of opinion that by those proceedings all our privileges have been invaded. [Mr. Roebuck: Hear.] I know that by that cheer the hon. Gentleman means to say that this is the time to defend them. I am as anxious as any one that they should be defended and protected; but if you wish to conduct the contest to a successful issue, you must engage in it with circumspection, as well as act with firmness when in it. It should not be lightly entered into, and when entered into not lightly departed from. I merely wished to state my reason for considering that, circumstanced as the House now is in reference to the whole case, it is not advisable at the present moment to come to a decision upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose; lest, by doing so in the negative, an impression might be created upon the public that the majority of this House are not prepared to adhere to the opinion, that the conduct of the Courts of Law in the case is at variance with the essential privileges of this House.

said: Although no one can differ upon this question more widely than I do from the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Motion, I nevertheless feel myself bound to say, that I consider the present the only time when they, and those hon. Gentlemen who think with them, can act consistently with the opinions which they entertain upon the subject. If they do not take the sense of the House now, but wait for three days to elapse, when the act of which they complain shall have been perfected, it is idle for them to talk of opposing it. I do not hold, with my right hon. Friend who last addressed the House, that its privileges have been violated; but those who do so contend ought not to shrink from the maintenance of those privileges, but follow the course proposed by the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Motion. I differ from them, and am prepared to oppose the Motion; but with all respect I must say, that they, and all other maintained of the high prerogative of this House, will stultify themselves if they allow a verdict to pass against them without an effort in the exercise of what they conceive to be their legitimate functions to avert it. If they suffer the writ to be executed on next Monday, it will be idle for them on the Monday following, when the cause of action shall have ceased, to come down to this House, and show themselves grandiloquent and courageous. It will be mere verbiage on the 9th of June to talk of what they ought to have done on the 30th of May. If you wish to commence a warfare against the law authorities of England, now is your time. If the sentence of the House is to be pronounced upon this subject at all—a step which I deprecate, I must, in justice to those who think differently from me, say, that this is the time for it; and not ten days hence, when the act complained of will have been completed.

I will not, Sir, be led away from my purpose by the "prudent course which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) has advised. I am not influenced by that advice, but I am influenced by the state of the case; and when he says that we are about to come to a hasty decision, I would ask him how often has this question been discussed? Is there, Sir, a human being in the country, or a Member of this House, who has at all thought upon the question, that has not already considered it from beginning to end, and is as well prepared to-night to come to a decision upon it as he could be on Monday, with the assistance of the "learned" Report of the Committee? Sir, this question goes deeper than at first appears. The hon. Baronet opposite, and noble and right hon. Gentlemen on the same side, oppose the privileges of this House—and why? So long as this House was merely the representative of a small portion of the aristocracy, no one stood up for its privileges more eagerly than the high Tory party; but the moment we come to represent the people, or to be something like a representation of the people—the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) shrugs his shoulders—of course nothing is more contemptible than the representation of the people—but the moment this House comes to represent the people, that moment are its privileges decried. I say, then, now is the time to uphold them. I am prepared to pit this House against the Court of Queen's Bench. From its earliest existence to the present day, the Court of Queen's Bench has been the supporter of all that is bad, tyrannical, and despotic in the government of this country. [Dissent.] I am borne out in saying so by the history of the country. Looking back to the time of Hampden, when a cringing and unprincipled Judge wished to satisfy the despotic view of the Government of the day, who stood out for the liberties of the country? This House. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford is just the man I should expect to oppose the privileges of this House now; but would he do so if Jack Wilkes were in the case? No, he would then be the first to maintain them. With the changes from an aristocratic to a popular representation, came this system of constantly decrying the House of Commons. We feel and understand, and the people out of doors will feel and understand, that that means a decrying of the representation of the Commons of England. You are prepared to pit us—I do not speak of myself—but you are prepared to pit this great body, representing the commonalty of the country, against the smallest, paltriest authority—you would have us, in obedience to the rule of every petty court in the country, having a prescriptive right, to "'bate our breath with whispered humbleness." The Court of Queen's Bench can bow to the Royal Court of Jersey; but let the Representatives of England say that a person shall be brought to the Bar of this House in the custody of the officer of the House, and the Court of Queen's Bench rises in all its majesty, and demands to know who are the House of Commons? The Royal Court of Jersey is a constituted authority; but the House of Commons nothing—nobody. I would ask, in return, what business the Queen's Bench has to interfere with your jurisdiction? It was plainly stated to that Court that this high and superior Court chose to bring the plaintiff in the action to the Bar, by an order given in all its form of expression through its officer, the Speaker, to its second officer, the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Queen's Bench says, "We are not aware of that, and must know why the House of Commons so decided." I say the House will demean itself, and forfeit all those privileges it is entitled to as the representa- tive body of the kingdom, if it yield to that demand. I am prepared to carry this matter out. I cannot suppose that the Queen's Bench will send its Chief Justice to levy this penalty; but whether it levy it or not, you should bring him to the Bar of this House. If you do not, your privilege is gone. Suppose the times altered, and that there should be upon the Bench some Judge desirous of carrying out the despotic propositions of a despotic Sovereign? Suppose the House of Commons to come into collision with that Chief Justice—see in what an abject position it will be if you fail to maintain your privilege on this occasion. We all know the value of a precedent in this country. [An hon. Member: The Chief Justice is a Peer.] I am not speaking of Lord Denman; I am speaking of the Court of Queen's Bench. If the Chief Justice should even happen to be a Peer, we have a way of coming at Peers just as well. Let the hon. Gentleman get himself made a Peer, then commit a breach of privilege against this House, and I shall soon show him how he is to be got at. But if we yield in this, we yield in everything; and so far I differ from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, although I believe he goes with me in all the other opinions I have expressed upon the subject. But, supposing we bow to this decision, and suffer the writ to be executed, and supposing the Sergeant-at-Arms to have no domicile and no goods to levy upon, then they take his person. I do not go so far as to suppose that they would come here to arrest him; but he was liable on his way to this House to be seized by the catchpole of the Queen's Bench and taken to prison, in spite of the orders of this House, and in spite of your protection, Sir, and that mysterious instrument, the mace. The officer of the House of Commons, of the representative body of the people of England, for having acted in obedience to the commands of that House, is taken to prison—he is gone, and with him your honour and your power, for you thereby confess your inability to defend your own servant when acting in obedience to commands which he would not have dared to refuse to excute. Well, the Queen's Bench seizes him by the neck, and takes him to prison. What follows? The Solicitor-General then comes down to this House in great amazement to know what we shall do. I should like to see the face of the hon. and learned Gentleman on such an occasion. He would, no doubt, call upon us to wait until Monday week, and beg of us, for God's sake, not to proceed hastily. But according to the supposed case I have put—and I have a right to suppose it—your officer is all the while in prison; this House is degraded, not only in the eyes of the country, but of Europe, and, having lost its privileges, sunk to the condition of a secondary court. We should not then be the same House of Commons as in olden days, when we ruled everybody; ["Hear, hear!"] ay, and we ought to rule everybody. I see by the face of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that if it were the case of Ashby or of John Wilkes, the House of Commons would then be regarded by him as the great bulwark of the liberties of England; but being constituted now of the Representatives of the people, and not of a fraction of the aristocracy, he is prepared to place its privileges at the mercy of the Queen's Bench; a Court which owes its existence to a Royal breath. I know well the education of a lawyer. I know well their past history, and I must protest against their being put up against the House of Commons, when the House of Commons has become the Representatives of the people. It is on these grounds that I stand at once in the breach. I say now is the time for action. If you do not act now, your case is at an end, your power is gone, and you are no longer what you pretend to be, the Representatives of the commonalty of England.

said, that if they were at the beginning of the question he should be more disposed to agree to the course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but after the steps already taken, he thought it behoved them to act with great caution and deliberation. He should therefore vote for the adjournment of the debate.

said, if he could anti-pate from the Report of the Committee that the Committee would ultimately recommend that resistance which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Worcester on a former occasion had so ably recommended, and which he thought the Committee ought to recommend, he would then accede to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon. He only said these few words to justify the vote he was about to give.

Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Bath has said, that hon. Members on this side of the House are opposed to the alleged privileges of this House, because its Members are now the Representatives of the people of this country; and then, with extreme inconsistency, he asks where would public liberty have been if Hampden had not risen in this House to vindicate its privileges? Why, Sir, the House of Commons of those days was as aristocratic an assembly as any which existed before its late reform. The House of Commons of the time of Hampden was not then elected by a constituency greater or more numerous than it was before the more recent reform of this House; and I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can impute to hon. Gentlemen on these benches that they would have wrongly vindicated the privileges of the House of Commons when it was aristocratic and before the recent changes, and then appeal to the name of Hampden as elucidating the great importance of vindicating the privileges of Parliament. Sir, there may have been times when judges were corrupt, and the hon. and learned Member is the last man to deny that there have been times when Parliaments were corrupt; there may have been times when judges were tyrannical, but the hon. and learned Member will scarcely dissent from the assertion that there have been Parliaments which have been tyrannical also. The hon. Gentleman says, that the privileges of this House ought to be defended, because they carry with them the sympathy and the affections of the people of this country; but let the hon. Gentleman see the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench committed to the Tower, and he will soon be able to discover whom the affections and the sympathies of the people of England do indeed rally. Sir, the difference between the privileges of Parliament and the privileges of the House of Commons has been often shown; and the people of this country do discriminate between Parliamentary privilege and the alleged privileges of one branch of the Legislature. I need not, upon the present occasion, advert to the instances in which the House of Commons, at different periods of its history, has exercised its power; sure I am that the hon. Gentleman can bring forward no case of corruption or of tyranny on the part of the Court of Queen's Bench which will not find a parallel in the tyranny and injustice of the House of Commons. But, Sir, these are not the considerations which ought to influence our decision upon the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman, however, has intimated that Gentlemen on this side of the House are opposed to the privileges of the House of Commons, because this House is now the representative of the people; while he admits, at the same time, that the exercise of these privileges, in the most aristocratic period of this assembly, has ever been the bulwark of the liberties of the country. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in one of his statements. I agree with him, that the opportunity has arrived, and, I believe, the last opportunity, for trying the great issue which we have so long evaded. I do not understand how any one Member of this House, whatever his opinions on the main question may be, can say, that he has not had the requisite time for consideration; and yet hon. Gentlemen speak of this question as having come suddenly upon us, as a falling star, amidst the serene atmosphere of Parliamentary discussions—as a comet, the course of which has not been ascertained, and the arrival of which has been quite unexpected. Why, Sir, ever since I have had a seat in this House, now for some eight years, the subject has been at intervals before us, and upon every occasion you have evaded a definite conclusion. The system of procrastination, and of avoiding the difficulty, has been invariably pursued; but, though you have postponed the evil day, you have been now brought to that extreme point which has been always foreseen, and which cannot now be avoided. It is impossible to say, after the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench shall have been vindicated under circumstances the most ignominious to this House—it will be impossible to pretend that the opportunity will still remain of trying the justice or propriety of that judgment; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) enforces the advice he has given us, by a deference to public opinion, I will only ask what that public opinion will be after the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench has been vindicated upon the property and the person of the Sergeant-at-Arms? The people will not make these subtle distinctions. They will see that an injured subject of the Crown has appealed to the Courts of Law; that the Courts of Law have vindicated his rights; and that, although there have been ostentatious declarations against him and the Courts, he has succeeded; and the right of the man himself will be inferred from this termination. For myself, Sir, I believe, that these alleged privileges of the House of Commons are not necessary; on the contrary, I believe that they are injurious to the liberties of the people, and I shall not deplore the result which the hon. Gentleman anticipates. I find that the advocates of these privileges always evade a definition of them. Do they mean that the House possesses and can execute an unlimited and irresponsible power? If we adopt the dogma of the hon. Gentleman, we must declare that there is a supreme power centered in this House. Is that your view of the Constitution of this country? Is that your view of what will be acceptable to the people of this country? For myself, I do not see any wish on the part of this country to have a supreme and irresponsible power exercised by this House; and I do not see the desire increased on the part of the public to see this House exercise any more extended power since that reconstruction and reform which, according to the hon. Gentleman, has made us the Representatives of the great body of the people. Every time a contest has been threatened, even in a partial manner, the public sympathy has been rather with those who have appealed from the House of Commons to the tribunals of the country. These feelings and these sentiments do not exist, as the hon. Member for Bath alleges, because those who take an opposite course in this House are the Representatives of the great body of the people; but they arise from an inherent and profound sentiment among the great body of the people of this country in favour of maintaining the majesty of the law of England. The people may have suffered from corrupt and tyrannical Judges; but they cannot forget that they have also suffered from corrupt and tyrannical Parliaments. I do not believe that they enter into any minute considerations of the whole question; they do not enter into any great historical research, but they associate this question with that administration of the law in this country for the last century and a half which has made the law the best security for public liberty. These I believe to be the sentiments out of doors; and I only rose to repudiate, on the part of those who sit on these benches, the notion that in the opposition we offer to this alleged privilege of the House of Commons, we wish to oppose the popular sentiment, or the exercise of a privilege which is in accordance with popular feelings. The hon. Gentleman has supposed the case of corrupt Judges, and of the Court of Queen's Bench presided over by persons desirous of subverting public liberty; but I may suppose a Parliament—not such a Parliament as we now know, free from faction, and where no party bias prevails—but I may suppose a Parliament in which the state of parties may be very different from what it now is—a Parliament which may choose to wield this supreme and irresponsible authority in the most objectionable and tyrannical manner. I have a right to suppose such a case as a parallel to that of the hon. Member for Bath; but we ought not to decide this question on either supposition. The real question for Parliament to decide is, whether the House of Commons shall exercise supreme and irresponsible power, or whether the majesty of the law of England, as explained by the Judges of the land, shall be upheld as paramount.

reminded the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland that the course which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had proposed, was adopted at the express suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. That suggestion for a postponement had been acceded to, and then came the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose; and following that the proposal of the noble Lord to adjourn the discussion until Monday week. He must call back the attention of the House to the position of this question. The origin was, that a subject of this realm, Mr. Howard, had commenced an action against the Sergeant-at-Arms. It was then open to the House of Commons to take whatever course it thought best to vindicate its privileges; but, with all the information before them, the House had deliberately authorized the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear and plead to the action; and the consequence was, that they submitted to the Queen's Bench the question whether the act of their officer was lawful or not? That mainly depended on the question whether the warrant on which a subject of the realm was imprisoned was legal or not? The question was most ably argued by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; and the judgment of the Court had been against the act of their officer. It became, then, a question of transcendent importance to determine what course they should pursue, that due respect might be manifested for the law of the country on the one hand, and that, on the other, the undoubted privileges of the House should be vindicated. This question could not, without injustice, be discussed prematurely, nor decided till after long deliberation and much consideration. It had therefore been referred by the House to a Committee; and it was necessary, for the interests and the dignity of the House, that it should be postponed. They would even enter upon it now at a disadvantage. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester had conclusively shown that no real mischief could arise from the delay. If they determined to bring a writ of error, it might be as effectually brought on Monday week as at present. The worst that could happen would be that the money would be paid. If they appealed to the Exchequer Chamber, and it might be to the House of Lords, and if the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench were reversed, they might recover back the money. There was no suggestion that Mr. Howard would be unable to pay the money; but, even if he were unable, of what importance would it be to the House of Commons, or to the people of this country? They would have vindicated their privileges.

Sir, I own that I entertain no doubt of the propriety of the advice I offered the House before I heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend; but if I had hesitated, the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and the part he has taken on this subject, would have led me to doubt, upon this occasion, the wisdom of the advice I have offered. My hon. and learned Friend has said, that when it was communicated to this House that an action had been commenced, it was put deliberately to this House whether they should appear and plead. I know not whether he was in the House at that time; but if he were, he would have heard on the part of those who advised the House to that course, a statement that, by appearing and pleading, they would not submit the privileges of the House of Commons to the Court of Queen's Bench. It was stated that the House could plead consistently with its privileges; that it had only to come to the Court of Queen's Bench and say that their officer did this by their warrant, and it would be sufficient. On that advice, against all caution—against the caution of the right hon. Baronet, who asked, "Who will undertake that the Court of Qneen's Bench will not criticise our warrant?"—against that wholesome caution, against that sagacious prophecy, the House did agree to plead. The House did it on the assurance that it would not do what the hon. and learned Gentleman now says it has done; and that is the reason why we are now so greatly embarrassed. The vote was come to against my protest, but on that assurance the House pleaded; and when my hon. and learned Friend says, "Let the execution be levied," I cannot but believe that my hon. Friend was absent from the division on the former occasion. If he were not absent, we might have expected that, as a Member of this House, and as a friend of the Constitution of the country, his aid might have been afforded in disabusing the House of the error into which it has fallen from following the advice of those who said that by pleading we should not submit our privileges to the judgment of the Court. I regret that, from the beginning to the end of this case, the House has not had the advantage of the talent and of the great ability of my hon. and learned Friend. I say it respectfully; but he has withdrawn from this House the protection of his talent and his learning; and I mention this because the House ought to be cautious in listening to his advice. It happened, when the Sheriffs were in custody, that I was sent for to the Bar of the House; and Mr. Under Sheriff France told me that they were prepared to submit themselves to the House, and asked what they should do. I declined to give any advice till they should fully have considered these matters, and till they had fully made up their minds to submit. Mr. France said that they had done so, and would therefore be obliged to me to tell them the best way of proceeding. I retired for a short time, and prepared a petition with a view to their submission and release; and when I returned I learned, according to their statement and impression, that my hon. and learned Friend had advised them not to submit. The House will be cautious in the reception of any thing I may urge, because I have taken so strong a view on this subject; and I do hope that it will be equally cautious in listening to the advice of my hon. and learned Friend, who has taken as warm, if not a warmer part, and who has the merit of having been the voluntary counsel for arguing this question against the House of Commons. Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend and myself are at opposite sides; and the House will hear us alike with great caution. I differ from my hon. Friend in regard to now proposing his Resolution; but if he could carry it, I would support him to the utmost of my power. Whether it is judicious to bring it forward as to time is another matter. I know very well that the House was told they are not to commit their privilege by appearing and pleading, and that afterwards they were told, you have, by doing so, put yourselves in the Court of Queen's Bench, and ought not to complain of its decision: and if the decision had been in your favour, you would have been content, and treated the Queen's Bench as a great constitutional Court; but because the decision is against you, you object to it, and seek to exercise your own powers. We ought to stop the levy of the execution—that is a step we ought to prevent. I deprecate above all things the bringing of the writ of error; but I admit that it would be a sad step to allow the levy of the execution. I know but one worse; and that is, that the House should now by a Resolution, either negative or affirmative, go back to proceedings already taken. I think, with the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that this is the last occasion, in all probability, when you can discuss this question with anything like advantage to it as it now exists. I congratulate myself upon the belief that when a great occasion arises, when the House is intercepted in the exercise of its proper functions, it will cut through, as through a cobweb, all you have done—I beg pardon for saying so—to degrade the House, and to destroy its authority and public usefulness. It is a surrender of the constitutional authority of this House, and with that its usefulness, with that its place in the Constitution; and it deprives the people of England of advantages for which they can receive no compensation. If the hon. Member for Montrose had a chance of carrying his Motion, I would support it and vote with him; but I lament very much that the chances are that he will be put in a minority. At the same time do not let the House think that no evil would arise from the levying of the execution; the evils of such a course may be great, but they would not be productive of half the evils of the Motion of the hon. Member being put and negatived. I trust that I should be able to convince many hon. Members that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, if that were the Motion, is erroneous in every part, and that the puerile criticisms on the warrant of this House are entitled to no respect. I believe the warrant good beyond the severest criticism that could be applied to it; and that the test applied, namely, that it ought to be judged by certain rules laid down in the lowest Courts of Common Law as to magistrates' warrants, is wholly insupportable, and highly derogatory to the dignity and usefulness of this House. It is contrary to law. There is a barrier to every law. Parliamentary Law is regulated by Parliamentary Law, and not by Common Law. I care not whether there were a few more words or less in the warrant than in former warrants; no man could read it without discovering the intention of it upon the face of it. It was, that the party was ordered into custody, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms was to take him—whither? To the place to which he was sent for to come. I will not go into that now. I think the Queen's Bench is decidedly wrong in the test it applied to this warrant, as to whether it was good or bad. The question to be put to that Court is, Have you a right to examine and pronounce upon the warrant or not? Would you examine a process of the Court of Common Pleas? You would not. Neither could the Court of Common Pleas examine yours. Above all, a Parliamentary process is to be judged of by Parliamentary rules, and they are not rules judicially known to the Common Law Courts; it is wholly out of their jurisdiction. But they have greatly erred in the judgment they have pronounced, not only in presuming to apply the test they have, but in the application of that test. I trust that, unless my hon. Friend sees some chance of carrying his Motion, (which, if he does carry, he will be the best friend England has had for some time, and I should rejoice in it;) but unless he should succeed he will only add something like an affirmance or assent to the levying of the execution, which will hereafter be productive of the greatest inconvenience; although my hon. and learned Friend sees no evil likely to result from, the levying of the execution.

, in explanation, said that with respect to the opinion he had given as to the question, Whether the Sheriffs were to submit to the House of Commons, and refuse to execute the writ? His answer was, that if the Sheriffs, whether under the protection of the House of Commons or not, refused to execute any writ emanating from the Court of Queen's Bench, they would be liable to an attachment, and to remain in prison until they executed the writ. He denied that he had volunteered as a Counsel in the case; he had received a retainer just as he might in any other case, and had argued the question according to his opinion of the law; but he came into that House perfectly free to form an independent opinion, and to do his duty as a Member of that House; and he hoped he should do so until the question had ceased to exist.

thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kelly) attributed more to himself than he was entitled to assume. He did not think it possible that any Gentleman could take a retaining fee for the advocacy of a particular view of a case, and then come into that House and declare that he was at liberty to do his duty as a free and independent Member of Parliament. He (Mr. Dundas) had the honour of being a member of the Bar, and he was prepared to say that no member of the Bar, being a Member of Parliament, ought to take a brief to support any cause that was in contravention of the privileges of that House. One to whom the House had a right to look for his distinguished services in support of its privileges ought to have been, on that very account, the last to take up a position which rendered it impossible for him to give his good services as a Member of Parliament to the upholding of those privileges. These were his (Mr. Dundas's) private sentiments, and he knew that they were shared in by many. He rose principally to meet the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that he was free to give his best opinion upon this subject, uninfluenced by any circumstance, and to say that in his (Mr. Dundas's) judgment the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman was neither safe for the House to receive, any more than it was fair for him to give. It was said that by allowing an appearance, and a plead- ing to the action, the House of Commons had submitted its privileges to the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench. He denied that. He denied that the House of Commons either intended to submit its privileges to the decision of any court of law, or that it had in point of fact, by adopting the course recommended by wise and prudent persons, done so. It was true that the House of Commons told the Law Officers of the Crown to defend the action, as was formerly done in the case of Burdett v. Abbott; but he denied that either then or now the House of Commons gave up to the Court of Queen's Bench the power of deciding upon its privileges. He was opposed to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. What would be the consequence if it were carried? The Sheriff's officer would levy on the Sergeant-at-Arms. What then would happen? It would be voted to be an attack upon the privileges of the House. He would advise that the House should maintain themselves where they were. Nothing was so bad as to show a bold fight, and then to shrink from it. What would happen? The officer levies: were they to stand by and do nothing? What were they to do then? They must lay the officer by the heels. That, however, would be but an impotent revenge. He was a very unwise and rash adviser who recommended a superior court, like the House of Commons, to seek counsel from an inferior one as to defending its privileges; and more especially was he unfit to be consulted who should represent the present state of affairs as having nothing dangerous in its aspect. The matter before the House was, in fact, merely a choice of evils. He felt that it would be a very severe blow, if even it were suspected that the House of Commons were shy as to defending their own privileges. He thought it would be the safer and better course to follow the council of the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, and guard themselves from the danger of giving a vote upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. Under these circumstances, he should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, unless the hon. Member for Montrose should (and which he might do without the least discredit to himself) withdraw his Motion.

thought it impossible for the House to escape from the necessity of coming to a determination as to whether it was proper or not for the House to exercise its authority in respect to the judgment which had been obtained against the Sergeant-at-Arms. He was bound to declare that he coincided in the opinion which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Thomas Wilde) had pronounced as to the propriety of the judgment of the House, and the validity of the warrant issued by the Speaker. He went the full extent of saying that whether the warrant was to be considered as the act of the Speaker only, or as a warrant emanating from the House, he had not the slightest doubt that the warrant was good. But the question they now had to consider was, whether they were prepared to resist the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench or not? It was impossible for them to blind their eyes to the fact that the public would never go along with them, if they were content merely to rest with the imprisonment of the subordinate ministers of justice. The ultimate question must be this, would they proceed against the Judges of the land or not? Their conduct would appear pusillanimous in the extreme if they did not go to the utmost extremity against all persons who interfered with their privileges. It would be advisable, however, for them just to stop and consider whether they should have the public opinion with them in such a contest; for whatever might be their privileges, they might depend upon this, that those privileges would be utterly feeble unless they were supported by public opinion; and he would defy any one to satisfy the country that in this particular instance the House was in a condition to assert its privileges to the extent contended for by the hon. Member for Montrose. It had happened unfortunately, in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, that the Lord Chief Justice, betraying the warmth of a generous nature, gave vent to strong expressions against the privileges of the House, for which, in his judgment afterwards, he atoned in the most graceful manner. Before the House took such a step as was contemplated by the hon. Member for Montrose, he was anxious that it should consider whether it would carry the public feeling with it. In 1843, the opinion of the Court, as indeed had been anticipated, was unfavourable; and in the face of it was the House prepared to commit those by its own power who resisted under a judgment to which the House had submitted? It seemed to him impossible to adopt the course recommended by the hon. Member for Montrose with safety; and the real question therefore was, what was the House under the circumstances to do? Was it to postpone the question, and allow the levy to take place on the goods of the Sergeant, who had only acted under the orders of the House? Was he to be protected from the consequences? It was clear to him that some resolution ought to be passed to protect the Sergeant, although he was decidedly opposed to any attempt by force to prevent the execution of the judgment. The public feeling would not be with the House in any such attempt. He felt the great difficulty in which the House was placed, and he hardly knew what step to recommend; but he trusted that something might be devised which would extricate the House from its present situation

In 1837 the House was advised by the then Attorney General (Sir J. Campbell) to plead to the action brought against Messrs. Hansard. The House did plead, and then came the question, whether the damages should be paid. I advised their payment then, on the ground that we had not interfered in the earlier stages of the proceeding. In a subsequent case the House did not plead. There the question also arose whether the damages should be levied; and the House proceeded against the Sheriffs. With respect to the present action, the House was advised that it should plead to it, and the House agreed to the Motion in 1843—a Motion made by me that Mr. Howard be summoned to the Bar being rejected. And now what is it that the hon. Member for Montrose proposes? It is this, that having omitted all preceding steps, you should now interfere to prevent the levy of the damages. If the House is prepared to take that course, they should have interposed when the parties first instituted the suit. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had referred to the Resolution of the House which declared the institution of any suit in these cases to be a breach of privilege; and the Resolution further went on to say that any parties who should presume to be concerned in any such suit, should be amenable to the displeasure of the House, and visited with punishment. An hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. Kelly), who was himself concerned in the prosecution of the present suit, has this evening expressed his opinion to the House. Now, I own that I think that that hon. and learned Gentleman did not do his duty as a Member of this House, in being concerned in such suit. But as the House neither interfered with Mr. Howard, his counsel, or attorney, in respect to this suit, I think it too late to begin now with such interference. We have lost the opportunity of doing that, and therefore I could not be a party to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the House should now interpose. The other part of the question would be considered on a future day.

said, he rose to take the part of his hon. and learned Friend, who had been attacked by the noble Lord when he was not in a position to defend himself; and he did so the more readily, because in the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sutherlandshire—which he, in common with the whole House, had listened to with the greatest pleasure—the same subject was alluded to; and there was no portion of the noble Lord's speech which was so cheered as what the noble Lord said of his hon. and learned Friend. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge had been attacked for taking a brief in the case of Howard and Gosset. He must say that, if the plaintiff were not to have the advantage of the services of a Member of this House, neither ought the defendant to have the benefit of the services of another Member of this House. In either case the impartiality which his noble Friend was so anxious to preserve in the deliberations of this House, would be violated. Each Member would come into the House alike prejudiced on one side or on the other. He was not conscious of any order of the House on the subject. He was aware it had been alleged by a very high authority that there was a rule prohibiting Members from holding a brief on any matter in which the House was concerned, except with the permission of the House; but, if there were such a rule, he was certain it was violated every day. In a case like that of Queen Caroline's, before the House of Lords, it had been required that Members should have leave to appear; but in no instance of a private action, that he was aware of, had permission been required. He was sure that the value of the services of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge would be admitted by every one; and, as he was not in a position to make this statement for himself, he felt bound to make these few observations. He would not say a word on the general question, as he did not think on that subject he was entitled again to claim the indulgence of the House.

I am perfectly content to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, that this debate should be adjourned to a future day. There is a difficulty in this case, and in every case connected with privilege, that we are anxious to postpone the evil day, and it is natural that we should; but do not let us suppose that we are escaping from the real difficulty of this case by adjourning the debate. I cannot conceal from myself that if we are disposed to advise resistance to this encroachment on our privileges, the present is the day when we ought to do it. I quite understand the doctrine that by pleading we did not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court; but I deeply lament, at the outset, that we ever did consent to plead. I was a party to the Resolutions that the privileges of this House should be exempt from question in a court of law—that we had competent power to protect our privileges, and that we should consider any authority that called them in question guilty of a contempt of this House. Eight days after we came to these Resolutions, we consented to plead in the case of "Stockdale v. Hansard," at the instance of the then Attorney General (Sir J. Campbell) who gave us that advice, not from indifference to the maintenance of our privileges—for they never had a more able or efficient advocate—but from a mature consideration of all the difficulties of the case, and on account of the imperfect powers—for we must make the admission—that we possessed for defending them. Such being the case, the then Attorney General gave us the advice to plead, which was at the same time consistent with a determination to do all he could in defence of our privileges. I foresaw that the consenting to plead in that case would greatly fetter our future course. I repeat that I understand the doctrine, that by pleading for the purpose of informing the court that a certain thing was done by our order, does not amount to an admission of the jurisdiction of the court; but it was nevertheless, a step embarrassing to us. Still I draw a distinction between pleading in a court of law, and paying these damages; but acquiescing in the payment of the damages—that is to say, if we chose to close our eyes, not giving any direct authority to the Sergeant to refuse the payment, contenting ourselves with saying, that we gave no instructions, and that we would not be parties to the payment, depend on it, that that is tantamount to coming to a resolution, that on the whole it is advisable that the Sergeant should pay the damages. I only mean to say—do not let us disguise from ourselves the real state of things, after paying the damages; or, what is the same thing, after acquiescing in their payment on Monday, by adjourning the present debate, it will then be inconsistent for us on Monday to say, with respect to the parties who might levy the damages, that they should be proceeded against by the exercise of the powers of this House for a breach of privilege. If you consider the levying of these damages a breach of privilege, it is your duty to give notice to the parties that they must not proceed to levy, and that if they do proceed they will be committed; but to let this night pass, and to let damages be levied on your Sergeant, would preclude you from exercising the power of committing the parties to whom you have given no notice not to proceed. We cannot pretend to be ignorant of the facts of the case. The Committee has reported that "they do not deem it expedient to advise the House to interpose to prevent the levy." We have adopted the printing of that Report; and cannot plead ignorance, therefore, of the fact. Sir, I acquiesce in the adjournment, not concealing from myself the consequences, but being prepared to admit that any mode of disposing of this question to-night, excepting a distinct notice to the parties to proceed at their peril in the levy of these damages, will hereafter prevent us from exercising the authority of this House by punishing those parties. But, at the same time, I am bound to state, that foreseeing the consequences of the adjournment, I object to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, because I am not prepared to enter on that conflict, to which I apprehend we are not yet come. I know what the consequences of delay will be; and I think the hon. Gentleman has some reason in calling on the House to affirm his Resolution. But I am not going to enter on that conflict; because, looking back on what has passed, and considering the imperfect means I have of vindicating the privileges of this House, I see it is absolutely necessary that we should make up our minds not to deal with subordinate officers. It will give no satisfaction to commit those subordinate agents of the Court, to deal with the officer that enters a room, and to call up the Sheriff, who is threatened, on the one hand, with attachment by the Court of Queen's Bench, and, on the other hand, by committal by this House; but when it does become absolutely necessary to vindicate your privileges—and I don't say the time will not come—depend on it you must make up your mind to deal with other men. You must either solve the difficulty—as you did before, in the case of the Printed Papers, where, in my opinion, your privileges were invaded — by legislation, or, feeling the essential importance of maintaining those powers and privileges given to you, not for your own benefit, or for mere capricious exercise, but given to you for the protection of the greatest interests of a free people, you must vindicate them by your own inherent powers. You must be prepared to take a course different from that you took when you committed the Sheriffs in 1840. You must not look out for excuses, that after a certain period you may release those you have committed; you must be prepared to go to all extremities in the vindication of your privileges. And in order to do that—in order to do it with effect—you must feel in your mind and conscience, in order that you may be supported in such a course, that the necessity has absolutely arisen—that there is no room for further delay, or resort to other powers—you must not only have that impression, but, on account of the imperfection and insufficiency of your powers, you must be backed by the prevailing and predominant feeling of the people of England — that you have no other alternative for the protection of their interests than resorting to that course. In that course I believe you will succeed; but don't enter on it without the deepest conviction that the time for it has arrived. I do not think that period has arrived; I do not think we have taken the preliminary proceedings which would justify us in resorting to it. I won't now enter into the general question. If I made no concession of jurisdiction to the Court below, in my opinion I make no concession of jurisdiction by going to another tribunal, and saying, "I believe this decision to be wrong. I believe that what was done was done by order of the House of Commons. I go to the Court in Error as I went to the Court of Queen's Bench; I believe I shall succeed in establishing my right." That is a course which it is open to me to pursue. Although I trust, from the declarations I have made, and the course I have pursued, I have shown no disinclination to vindicate the privileges of this House—no indifference to their maintenance—no depreciation of their importance; yet, foreseeing what the contest will be—seeing I may be opposed by a powerful minority in this House—I will not resort to a last extremity, till I have exhausted every other means—till I feel the necessity has absolutely arisen—till I feel there is no other resource for maintaining privileges which I believe essential to the welfare of the country, and which I will say I believe endangered by this decision of a court of justice. I believe that decision to be an unjust one; but I will not resort to extreme measures, looking to the imperfections of the instruments I have to deal with, and the difficulties with which I have to contend, until I can, with a safe conscience, say to the people of this country, every other means have been used, and there is no alternative but to resort to our own authority for the vindication of our own privileges.

lamented that the discussion had this night proceeded to such a length; and that the right hon. Baronet had alluded to certain circumstances to which he did not expect him to advert. At the same time, he concurred in opinion with the right hon. Baronet; and while he did not deny the right of the House to interfere, as the hon. Member for Montrose had suggested, he doubted whether the proposal would be supported by a majority. He agreed that subordinate officers ought not to be made responsible to the House, and that, if necessary, proceedings should be taken against the Judges themselves for the vindication of privilege. He maintained that the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was a mere thing of shreds and patches; that two of the Judges had contradicted themselves repeatedly; and that the result—to use the mildest term—was erroneous. He entreated the hon. Member for Montrose not to place the House in a difficult and disadvantageous position; and regretted that he had been misled by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, who was no very skilful Palinurus, to recommend a course which he would not have proposed had he given the subject twenty-four hours' deliberate consideration. If the hon. Member persevered with his Motion, and were defeated, he could never again advance the doctrine of privilege with force and effect.

, in reply, said, hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of an adjournment, admitted the evil, but had not the courage to grapple with it. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford said, there was no rule why a Member of that House should not give advice against the House. The rule was this, that no Member of the House should appear before a Committee to argue any question in which he ought to be, or rather might be, the judge. He thought that if their privilege was to be asserted at all, it should be asserted now. The hon. Gentleman (the Solicitor General) pointed out all the evils and difficulties of the question, and then sat down without telling the House what he was prepared to do. They were placed in a lamentable position. The action might have been brought against the Speaker himself, and, in fact, as their head it should have been so. He thought that the principals alone ought to be amenable; and he was still disposed to think that Lord Denman should be called to the bar of the House; and, from what the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had said, he thought it would come to that in the end. What reason was there, he would again ask, why they should not proceed with the discussion? They were now ancle-deep in the mud; why should they become knee-deep? They had been kicked on Monday, as it were, and buffeted on Tuesday; on Wednesday they said they would submit to be kicked again, and they would then, when the evil was done, be courageous enough to grapple with it on the Thursday. He hoped that a sufficient number would be found to agree with him in rejecting a proposition for further delay. Every hon. Member who had heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) must be convinced that he was as anxious to go on as he (Mr. Hume) was; and the right hon. Baronet had offered no excuse whatever for postponing the discussion to a future day. The delay could effect no good object, for they were now in possession of as much information as they should hereafter obtain.

said, that at the end of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Solicitor General, that hon. Gentleman stated, that unless the House interfered immediately, the Sergeant-at-Arms would be put to considerable inconvenience on Monday next. Now, he should be glad to be informed in what way the hon. Gentleman wished the House to interpose to protect the Sergeant-at-Arms.

was not aware that he had proposed that the House should interfere immediately. He said that he thought the House should do something to prevent the inconvenience to which the Sergeant-at-Arms would be subjected; he, however, agreed in the propriety of postponing the discussion.

had listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) and, admitting as he did, that their privileges would be violated, supposing the parties in question proceeded to levy, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he would be disposed to support a Resolution, the effect of which would be to give notice to the parties that if they proceeded in levying the execution, they would be violating the privileges of the House?

said, the hon. Gentleman could not have listened very attentively to his observations, for if he were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, after having served such a notice as he proposed, if the parties proceeded to levy, it would be necessary to take some steps to punish them; and he (Sir R. Peel) had said that he was not prepared to support the committal of the plaintiff, or any other person. He had said that distinctly, and he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have put such a question.

said, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) proposed to introduce any material alterations into this Bill in Committee, and whether the memorial presented by the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland had received the consideration of the Government; whether, in consequence of that memorial, they contemplated any alterations or whether that memorial was under the consideration of Government, with a view to the adoption of any of the recommendations it contained?

said, if it had been the intention of the Government to propose any material alterations in this Bill, it would have been his duty, in moving the second reading, to explain such alterations in detail. It was, however, his intention to move the second reading, without announcing any such alterations. At the same time the noble Lord and the House were aware that, when the principle of the Bill had been affirmed upon the second reading, it would be open to any hon. Gentleman in Committee to propose such alterations as were not inconsistent with the principle of the measure. The noble Lord had referred to a memorial presented by the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant. He (Sir J. Graham) was bound to state that the adoption of the most material of the alterations, suggested in that memorial, appeared to his Colleagues and to himself to be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.

said, this Bill involved what he regarded as a new principle. Considering the late period of the evening at which they had now arrived, it was impossible that this debate could be brought to a conclusion to-night, and he earnestly hoped the right hon. Baronet would have the goodness to postpone the Bill until next week.

said, if they proceeded with the debate now, there was no disposition on the part of the Government to force the House to a decision on the question to- night. It was now only a quarter-past nine o'clock, and the state of public business, and the fact that great inconvenience was occasioned to important public interests in consequence of the delay of certain measures, rendered it desirable that they should now proceed with this measure.

suggested that the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, the second reading of which was fixed for that night, might be taken instead of the Bill then before the House.

said, it was usual to proceed with the Notice which stood first on the Paper for precedence; and several hon. Members connected with Scotland had left the House under the impression that the Scotch Poor Law Bill would not be brought under consideration to-night.

said, the right hon. Baronet had directly answered the question put to him by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and had stated that it was not his intention to make any material alterations in this Bill. He wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet; but if any inconvenience or any prejudice to the measure could arise from his peremptorily answering that question, he would not press it. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Home Secretary objected to religious instruction being given in these Colleges through the intervention of clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, to Roman Catholic students? and whether such clergymen should be paid by the State from the endowment, or by a tax or charge to be levied upon each Roman Catholic student who might enter the Colleges? He considered this a very material point. The right hon. Home Secretary had already stated that the lecture rooms would be allocated to the use of any Roman Catholic clergymen who might wish to instruct the students. Not only was it proposed to give the Roman Catholic clergy the opportunity, the right, of instructing Roman Catholic students, but a locality was allotted to them for the purpose. It had been suggested that a salary should be paid to these clergymen. Now, a salary could be paid in two ways—either out of the endowment, which made it an act of the State, or by the students, upon whom certain small sums might be levied for the provision of religious instruction. In the latter case the tax would be paid by the individual students, and not out of the endowment. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet considered it an essential principle of the Bill that no payment should be made to the Roman Catholics.

thought hon. Members ought not to call upon his right hon. Friend and himself to make statements. It was competent to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) to raise the question he had just mooted in Committee; but he thought it would be premature on the part of Government to give explanations on points relating, as he considered, not to the principle but to the details of the Bill. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his question now, but that he would reserve it until the Bill went into Committee.

I do not press it.

understood that the principle of the Bill was not to be materially altered. The Roman Catholic bishops had called upon the Government to endow the chairs of Physic, Materia Medica, and Anatomy, in the new Colleges, and to assign them to Roman Catholic professors. As a liberal Protestant, residing in Ireland, he must say that he considered this a most monstrous proposition—he could not apply any other term to it; and he thought the Government deserved great honour for the course they had taken with regard to such a proposal. The declaration of the right hon. Baronet could not be mistaken; the right hon. Baronet had stated that he meant to stand by the principle of the Bill. Although he objected to that portion of the Bill which vested the nomination of professors in the Crown, he should not be doing his duty if he failed to give his most cordial support to the Government in the principle they had laid down; and while they had been upsetting a Protestant supremacy in Ireland, he hoped they would not establish a Roman Catholic supremacy.

could not understand what the Government considered to be the principle of this Bill.

said, he had endeavoured to explain the principle of this Bill to the House when he moved its introduction; but he feared he had failed to render himself intelligible. He had stated that it was the earnest desire of the Government to afford the people in various important districts of Ireland the benefit of academical education; and that, considering the unhappy religious divisions prevalent in that country, it was felt by the Government that it would be impossible to admit all classes of Her Majesty's subjects to the benefit of such education, if they attempted to engraft upon it, by the endowment of the State, any theological instruction. He stated that the Government, therefore, intended to abstain from all interference with religious teaching in these institutions; but that, at the same time, facilities would be afforded for religious instruction by private endowment. These were the statements he (Sir J. Graham) before made to the House, and fully explained; and he believed that, on an examination of the details of the Bill, it would be found that these principles were fully carried out.

observed, that the principle of the Bill was not the denial or encouragement of any specific theological notion; but the absence of all religious instruction whatsoever, at least as far as that House was concerned. A systematic absence of all religious instruction, then, was the avowed principle of the measure.

wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet intended to adhere to that portion of the Bill which vested the appointment of professors in the Crown?

did intend to adhere to that principle. Considering all the circumstances of Ireland, and especially those unhappy religious divisions to which he had before referred, he thought it most important that the right of nominating the professors should be reserved to the responsible advisers of the Crown.

hoped the Government would not press the second reading of the Bill at this hour. It was, however, for the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury to decide that question. He had no wish to delay the progress of the Bill; but he thought it was questionable whether, if other business were taken to-night, time would not really be saved in the end.

believed, that the noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners) was not actuated, in pressing the adjournment of this debate, by any other motives than those he had avowed; but really hours were becoming of great importance. If they now proceeded with the discussion of this Bill, they would be enabled to continue the debate for three hours, and would make considerable progress with the measure.

wished to state that, if it were the intention of the Government to reserve the appointment of professors to the Crown, he would feel it his duty to give the Bill all the opposition in his power. The Order of the Day read; and, on the question that the Bill be read a second time,

said: I assure the House that I never rose with more reluctance than on the present occasion to move the rejection of this Bill. So great was my reluctance to adopt such a course, that till this morning I hesitated to take any step on the subject, in the hope that before this measure arrived at its present stage Her Majesty's Ministers would have made some declaration which might enable me, and other hon. Gentlemen, to give as hearty support to this measure as we gave to the proposal for an increased and permanent grant to Maynooth. But in the absence of any declaration on the part of the Government, and after the intimation of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) that no such alteration as we desire can be admitted, I am induced, however reluctantly, at whatever pain to myself, and with whatever weariness to the House, to meet this measure with a sincere, though reluctant, opposition. I cannot call a system such as this a measure of education for Ireland. In my view, education is something very different from the instruction provided by the enactments of this Bill. I never could consent to call a Bill such as this, which contains such a proviso as that I will now read to the House, a measure for promoting learning in any country:—

"Provided always, that no student shall be compelled by any rule of the College to attend any theological lecture or other religious instruction, and that no religious test shall be administered to any person in order to entitle him to be admitted a student of any such College, or to hold any office therein, or to partake of any advantage or privilege thereof."

I know not what may be the feelings of hon. Gentlemen on this or that side of the House; but I must say for myself that I conceive I should violate my duty as a Member of this House, and as one most deeply anxious to benefit the people of Ire- land, if I could consent to such a proviso as that. When I heard the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) say that he would not abandon the principle of the Bill—the principle, as I was led to conclude, contained in that proviso—I felt that the only course open to me was to move the rejection of the measure. I know that in this country, as in others, it is fashionable to appeal to the foreign system of education; and we are told to look at the happy results of that system in Prussia, in France, and in Bavaria. But I altogether deny the assertion. I say that, of all the fatal and mischievous measures ever proposed in any country, those measures of education which have so unhappily failed in France and Prussia, must be acknowledged to hold a bad pre-eminence. I think I shall be borne out by any one who has paid the slightest attention to the condition of France—to the volcano on which the Government of that country is standing at this moment with reference to education—when I say that I cannot conceive how the example of France can be quoted to us as a proof of the success of such a system. When I see no less than fifty of the bishops of the Gallican Church, not appointed by the Pope but by the King, protest in the most emphatic terms against that plan of education, and heading their clergy and faithful laymen in opposition to a system which threatens, at no distant day, to rend that Government to pieces, I cannot understand how we can sanction a measure which will, I believe, produce—not similar, but far worse and more deplorable results in Ireland. I have heard, and have seen it written in books sanctioned by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that one effect we should endeavour to attain by enlightened and liberal Government in these days, is to win over and to alienate the Roman Catholic population from that Church with which they are connected. I have seen it stated in a work by an officer high in the confidence of the late Government, who was rewarded for his services by an order—of all orders in the world to give to such a man—of Isabella the Catholic, that the people of the Basque Provinces were daily being seduced from their allegiance to the Church of Rome. [An hon. Member: Who was it?] Lieutenant Colonel Richardson. But this is not the view I take. I think the Government would make a very bad exchange of a faithful and believing people for those who pos- sessed a mere mass of secular learning. I am far from underrating the value of that learning; but I say this, that without a basis of religion, such learning is worse than useless; and I venture to suggest that, as a necessary preliminary to such a system of secular learning as that now proposed, a basis of religious education should be given. I know that it is said, "Look at the difficulties of Ireland; see how unfortunate religious differences divide us upon this subject, and compel us to take a course we should otherwise willingly avoid." I may be told, "Before you reject a measure which may do some good, you are at least bound to show that you have a measure of your own better and more practical." I am not indisposed to state, very humbly, and in no detail, a measure which I believe would be superior to that now before the House; but, before I do so, I must be allowed to say, that however any measure which might be proposed to be substituted for this might fail in some of its details and objects, I can conceive no measure so bad and inefficient as that now under our consideration. I should like to know what probability there is of this measure being practically acted upon in Ireland. I have heard Gentlemen say, "If this Bill were proposed for England, we should be the first to oppose and defeat it; but, looking at the state of things in Ireland, we are disposed to make every allowance for a measure of this kind; and if it will content the Irish Roman Catholics, and their hierarchy, great as our scruples on the subject may be, we are ready to support the Bill." But how can such an argument be used? This measure will not secure the support and confidence of the great body of the Irish Roman Catholic population; that it will obtain the support of the Members of the Irish Protestant Church, is to my mind, a most unnatural supposition. I cannot suppose that those who have opposed, and those who still do oppose, what is called the national system of education in Ireland, can suddenly turn round and support such a measure as this—a measure denounced in such strong terms by my hon. Friend below me (Sir R. Inglis), and by Gentlemen who profess the Roman Catholic religion with as much zeal and sincerity as my hon. Friend professes the religion of the Established Church. But be that as it may, I am convinced I am not wrong in asserting that this measure is not supported by the feelings and opin- ions of the Church of England. One of my reasons for respectfully submitting to the Government the propriety of postponing the discussion of this measure is, that the feelings of the people of England and of the English Church have been so much excited on the question of Maynooth, that this Bill, which in my opinion is of far greater importance, and introduces a far broader principle, has not received the consideration it would otherwise have obtained; and I think it is wrong that any step should be taken in a matter of such importance, without giving ample time and opportunity for an expression of opinion, at least, on the part of that Church which has not shown itself so violently opposed to the general policy of the Government. These are some of the reasons which induce me to take the course I have now felt it my duty to adopt. I trust I have not wearied the House by any lengthened observations. I have endeavoured to express my feelings on the subject in as calm a manner as I possibly could do. I assure Her Majesty's Ministers that, could I feel it consistent with my duty to support this measure, I would most heartily and cordially do so. I desire, in common with them, I will not say to conciliate, but to do justice to the people of Ireland; but I cannot help feeling that the terms in which the great leader of the Irish people has expressed his and their opinion of this measure, are such as I heartily concur in—terms in which, I believe, the people of England will also concur, and terms in which, I believe, the Church of England itself will generally be disposed to concur. Those observations the House will, perhaps, allow me read:—

"I want that education should be free. To obtain for the Protestant of the Establishment education for his children such as shall have the father's sanction and the mother's blessing. In like manner would I concede to the Presbyterians a distinct and separate education for Presbyterian youth, and join them in calling upon the Government for a guarantee that the children should be educated in the religious profession of their fathers. That being my principle, here I am ready to work it out—to work for the Protestant, the Presbyterian, and all classes of dissenters. I contend that every persuasion should have a distinct and separate system of religious instruction. Religious education must be in its nature exclusive. It is exclusive to all who hold a contrary belief in religion. There can be no mixed education in religion—whatever 'mixed' education means. The mixed education under this Bill does not mean much, there are no ingredients to mix up in it—nothing that can be called a mixture—it is an unmixed evil."

In evidence given before a Committee of this House, in the year 1825, Mr. O'Connell stated, that he favoured the plan of having a Protestant College in Dublin, for the use of members of the Church of England, a Presbyterian College in the north, and a Catholic College in the south. That appeared to him to be perfectly reasonable, and so the hon. and learned Gentleman stated in his evidence. He said that that scheme would allay all differences of feeling, and make due allowance for all differences of creed. But for all this, I do hope that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into a law. As long as the Government says we will provide secular instruction for you, and leave you to obtain your religious instruction, discipline, and habits wherever you can, so long will I oppose such measures as this. I say, that under such circumstances secular instruction is worse than useless. By such a system you inflict a dangerous wound on Ireland; instead of being a boon it will prove a curse; in every point of view it is to be deplored. If you succeed, future statesmen may tremble for the consequences, and succeeding generations must deplore your triumph. You may give the people of Ireland secular instruction; but in doing so you deprive them of old habits of faith and veneration, you dash and destroy all the good effects that might be expected to arise from the grant to Maynooth, and you create for future Governments the most fatal of all temptations, namely—interfering with that upon which the salvation of immortal souls depends. The noble Lord moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, the noble Lord who had last addressed the House had assumed what he had no right to assume—that persons educated in these academies would be altogether destitute of religious education. He believed, on the contrary, that the practice which had continued up to the present moment in Ireland, of diligently catechising young persons of all religious persuasions at stated occasions, would still prevail. In the part of Ireland with which he was best acquainted, he knew that, on every Sunday, the youths of the Catholics, and the Presbyterians, and the Dissenters, and of the Church of England, regularly attended at their respective places of worship; and he was convinced, that under the Government system the same care of the religious principles of the students would be persevered in, and that all of them would, without exception, maintain the religion of their fathers. The noble Lord believed that, in two or three generations at the utmost, they would have infidelity prevailing in the country; but he entirely denied the soundness of that supposition. They had instances in the proprietary schools of this country of children being educated on the proposed plan, and being afterwards sent out, in many instances, a credit and an ornament to society. They had also the example of the national system of education in Ireland, under which 400,000 young persons were given a sound religious and moral education. The noble Lord would find scarcely one of these children who would not be able to enter into controversy with him, and state what they believed to be sufficient reasons for the faith which they professed. As to the question of the appointment of the professors being left in the hands of Government, he admitted that there were many good and solid arguments against it; but he felt that the countervailing evils would be as great if these appointments were left to popular elections. In the town with which he was connected (Belfast), he knew that a popular election for professors would be attended with squabbles which would hardly be paralleled by the Parliamentary elections in 1841. But he did not see hereafter, when a good foundation would be laid for the Colleges, that an alteration in the selection of the professors might not be very properly made in favour of popular election; though he believed that at present such a system would cause great inconvenience and embarrassment. He had not come down to the House with an intention of speaking on the question; and if he had intended addressing the House on the subject of the Bill, he would have come prepared with the authority of the Rev. Baptist Noel in favour of secular education without being joined with religious instruction.

said, it was not his intention to trouble the House long, as the sentiments expressed with respect to this measure by the noble Lord, corresponded with those which he entertained. He regretted very much to be obliged conscientiously to oppose this Bill in its present state. He opposed it because it did not give the sanction which should be given to religion. He regretted that more attention had not been paid to the protest of the Roman Catholic bishops. He could not feel that the scheme would be beneficial to Ireland. The plan of founding a Roman Catholic College in the south of Ireland was the only one that would be acceptable to the Irish people. He had voted for the Maynooth grant, but he did not therefore think it inconsistent to oppose the present measure. He voted for the Maynooth Bill because he thought it the duty of the State to provide for the Roman Catholic clergy; but this Bill made no provision for religious instruction. It not only omitted that, but it neglected to provide for the proper training and discipline of the young men who were to come to the Colleges from the country. He could not see why the Government should not provide houses where moral restraint would exist over the students. Under all the circumstances, he could not allow this Bill to proceed without entering his humble protest against it.

could not conceive that the principle of this Bill was one which made it fair to call it a "gigantic scheme of godless education." He conceived that it was framed upon the principle, not of its being generally expedient to set religious instruction aside, but of its being, in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, extremely inconvenient to apply that instruction to the people through an educational establishment endowed by the State. In former times, when conformity to the religion of the State was the rule, and the departure from it the exception, Colleges were founded on principles of domiciliary and parental instruction, embracing both secular science and religious truth. But in the present very different state of opinion, the adoption of the same principle was clearly impossible. This position the Bill now before them seemed to him, by its provisions, to admit and adopt. It was a measure, he believed, on the right road in regard to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland; and the very fact of his not agreeing with all its provisions, made him the more anxious to see it pass through its second reading, and come before them in a stage when they could introduce into it those improvements which might seem advisable. The demands of the Roman Catholic bishops were such, however, as he was disposed to think it would be impossible to accede to, without totally giving up the great principle of the measure—that of providing a mixed education. He wished to see both the great religious parties of Ireland come forward, and each contribute what each conscientiously could to the common and the great cause of the moral and literary education of the people.

said: I rise with unfeigned pleasure after the speech which has just been made by my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool; for that speech has contributed to relieve me of much pain. It was very painful to me to have it supposed that any proposition of mine should be made to the House under the influence of such motives as upon former occasions, and in other places, have been imputed to me. Although the censure, to which I allude, is in some degree a personal question, yet, I feel that the House of Commons is not the place in which I am willing to make professions upon religious subjects; but I trust that the House will give me the fullest credit when I assure them that no consideration whatever would have induced me to propose any measure to Parliament which could be considered farly open to such condemnation as has beien pronounced upon the Bill now before the House. I am rejoiced to find it admitted, that in the Bill which I introduced I have not neglected to make provision for religious education. But at the same time I still hold, as I always have held, that there would be not the least probability of success for any measure by which it was proposed that the State should make provision for theological instruction. The opinions of more than one hon. Member have been pronounced in favour of a separate system of religious education; and I understood the noble Lord the Member for Newark to contend that there should be a Roman Catholic College in the south, one for Presbyterians in the north, and one for members of the Church of England in Dublin. Instead of removing the angry feelings which unhappily subsist in Ireland, I fear that his scheme of separate instruction, according to difference of creed, would tend to exasperate those feelings to excess; none more certain to produce that effect, none more likely to aggravate existing evils to a lamentable extent. In reference to the passage at the end of the 14th Clause, I must take this opportunity of saying that I consider there would be great difficulty in providing any joint religious education that would be generally acceptable to the people of Ireland. In the first place, it is absolutely necessary in framing such a measure to make it clear and plain to every man's understanding, that for eligibility to hold office there shall be no religious test, and no religious test to be applied to those persons who seek to become students at those Colleges; in short, that no religious test whatever is to be applied either to students or to professors. We thought, and we are still of opinion, that the more plainly and the more intelligibly those principles are brought out, the more acceptable and the more practically useful will the measure be likely to prove. Is there, then, after all, any novelty in the plan on which we propose to proceed? I will first notice the Universities of Scotland, and show to the House what the practice has been with regard to the enforcement of religious instruction in connexion with education in those establishments. There is no country where religion is more venerated, or where it has greater predominance over the habits and the thoughts of the people, than in Scotland. In that country the prevailing form of faith was established after a long struggle with England against a religion which was opposed to the sentiments of the people; but ultimately, the Presbyterian form of worship prevailed, and was established by the Union—if, indeed, it might not rather be considered as the basis upon which the Act of Union was framed. Now, deeply venerated as is the form of worship established throughout Scotland, and intimately bound up with all the feelings of Scotchmen as are the practices of religion, yet, in so far as the course of education in the Universities of Scotland is concerned, religion is not enforced upon the students as a study; and although professors are certainly subjected to a test to qualify them for their offices, there is no conformity required on the part of the students, neither is their attendance enforced either at divinity or theological lectures; nor, with the exception of the professors, is any test required of those who matriculate in the Scotch Universities. In answer, therefore, to what has been stated by the noble Lord the Member for Newark, I have shown that the system for which he contends does not prevail in Scotland; but, on the contrary, that parents send their children to be instructed at the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, notwithstanding they are well aware that attendance on theological or divinity lectures is not compulsory; and that, in fact, the regulations of those Universities do not recognize any discipline in religious instruction, nor enforce any compulsory attendance either at divinity lectures or even at divine worship. When I look to the opposite side of the House, I see sitting there two noble Lords, both of whom can speak to the practice in this respect of the Scotch Universities, and also as to the sentiments of the parents who send their children to be educated there; and what is that practice? Why, young men are sent from their homes to the houses of professors, who superintend their morals and their education; and the result is satisfactory in both respects. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton said, during a former debate in this House, that he had had some experience of a Scotch University, previous to his matriculation in an English one; and he stated, that in his opinion, the morals and religion of the pupils are not more neglected in the Scotch, than in the English Universities. With respect to myself, I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that I had the advantage of being a member of the same College as the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford. We both matriculated at Christ Church; and I must candidly admit that the course with respect to religious education pursued at Oxford does appear to me to be somewhat extraordinary when I look back upon it. When I was matriculated, I was not compelled to state what I knew in matters of religion; but I was called upon to subscribe and to swear to what I believed. But I now solemnly state that during the two years of my residence at College, I was never—with the exception of the required attendance at chapel—once called upon to attend to any lectures either upon theology or divinity. During the whole of that time, I never received any religious instruction whatever independently and apart from that which I derived from the enforced attendance upon chapel. I never, during those two years, attended a university sermon; and I am ashamed to say, that whilst I was at Oxford, I never, during the whole period of my residence, heard one single sermon. I appeal to the hon. Baronet whether he were ever compelled to attend divinity lectures whilst he was at Oxford. I do not know what his taste may have been; but I know that unless he liked he was under no necessity to listen to sermons. I now pass from the consideration of this question, as far as Scot- land and England are concerned, to an examination of what the practice has been in Ireland. In the first place, I may observe that the hon. Member for Belfast approves of the Bill which is before the House, and with reason; for he has had some experience as to the success of the scheme of academical education which I have proposed, and which, to some extent, has been in operation in the city with which he is connected, under the direct sanction of an Act of Parliament, for a very long period. There have been objections raised to that part of the Bill which vests in the Crown the nomination of the professors in the establishments to be created in Ireland. Now, the experience of the hon. Member will enable him to inform the House that the nomination of the professors by the local governing body is the very one that has been pursued in the academical institution of Belfast. The nomination of the professors in that institution was originally vested in the governing body; they naturally enough followed the dictates of their own religious feelings, and nominated professors of their own creed. Unitarians obtained the ascendancy; and it was alleged that the professors were all selected from that class of religious teachers. The Presbyterians complained, and appealed to this House. Upon consideration, it was decided that the Regium Donum was not confined to orthodox professors; but that Presbyterians and Unitarians were alike entitled to partake of it. The Presbyterians objected to that state of things at the Belfast Institution; and, therefore, in order to prevent that academy from going to destruction, it became necessary to appoint two sets of professors—one Presbyterian, to obviate the want of orthodoxy—and the other Unitarian, in conformity with the local predominant influence. A petition has been presented against the educational scheme of the Government, with respect to these projected establishments, wherein it is stated that one of two things must inevitably take place, if religious instruction is to constitute one of the features of the scheme—namely, that the professors must of necessity be Roman Catholics, or else that there must be three sets of professors, of the three prevailing forms of belief; and, consequently, that all the branches of abstract science, even down to anatomy, must be taught by different professors to students professing different creeds. In making these observations, I do not mean to imply that the question as to the proposed method of nominating the professors under the Bill, is not open to consideration; but I have been asked this question, and I frankly replied that, considering all the different circumstances of the case, I thought it best that at least the first nominations under the Bill should be vested in the Crown. I do not mean to say, that after the first nomination has been made, a governing body might not advantageously have that power confided to it, a veto being reserved to the Crown. Nor do I say that the Bill may not be open to such an amendment hereafter; but I should deceive the House if I were now to say that we are disposed to make any such proposition, or to assent to its introduction. Now, I do not think it would be giving the proposed scheme of education fair play, if we did not take into consideration the extreme, and at the same time the just jealousy which is entertained upon religious grounds, and make a suitable provision to prevent all attempts to proselytize. I believe, with the noble Lord the Member for Newark, that no greater evil can happen to youth than to fall into habits of scepticism; and I also think that these fatal habits may be generated, or at least are much more likely to be grafted on the minds of our young men by the indiscreet attempts to which I refer, than if there were a total abstinence from any attempt to tamper with the articles of their creed. I have, therefore, thought it right to adopt some precautions against any attempts that may be made hereafter to turn lectures on abstract sciences into a vehicle for conveying peculiar religious tenets. I propose to give to the Crown the summary power of removing professors who so abuse their trust; and any such misconduct will be promptly and severely visited I have already stated that I do not contemplate any alteration in the Bill which will have the effect of varying its principle; but I have thought it due to the noble Lord the Member for Newark to make the observation which I have done; at the same time I may state that there are one or two alterations which I shall introduce into the Bill during its progress through the Committee. The first of these is with respect to the visitatorial power of the Crown. By its prerogative, the Crown cannot delegate that power to any other person but the Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being, unless such power be created by Statute. Considering the circumstances in which the new Colleges will be placed, I think it will be expedient to give such a power of delegation; and that the Executive Government should possess the right of appointing visitors, so that in districts where the Roman Catholic faith predominates, the proportion of visitors of that persuasion may be equal to that of the students at the Colleges. In the north of Ireland, the visitors would be principally selected from the Presbyterians. The Crown, by the aid of such visitors, would be enabled at once to inquire into any alleged abuse that might exist in the Colleges, and provide a remedy against it. I may also state, that although it is not the intention of the Government to endow any theological or divinity lectures, I am, at the same time, of opinion that it is very desirable there should be in connexion with these Colleges some means or some institution for providing, without the walls, religious instruction for the students. I have already stated my reasons for not making such provisions within the Colleges; and I therefore, may state, that I am not indisposed to add a clause to the Bill, when in Committee, for the purpose of facilitating the endowment of divinity lectures by private funds, and the construction of halls where such lectures may be delivered. I am bound to state, that although it is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to meet the reasonable wishes of the great body of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland with regard to academical institutions in that country; and although those Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops from whom we have received a memorial, are, by their talents and their station, entitled to our respect, yet that memorial does contain certain demands to which we cannot, consistently with the principle of the Bill, give our consent. The first demand is—

"That a fair proportion of the professors and other office-bearers in the new Colleges should be members of the Roman Catholic Church."

Now, without entering into any stipulation upon the subject, I cannot conceive it possible that any Government advising Her Majesty as to the nomination of professors, would not, in the first place, endeavour to secure in the different Colleges those who, by their learning and abilities, are the most competent; and, beyond a doubt, on the part of many of the professors, an adherence to the Roman Catholic faith would be an additional recommendation — one, too, which I have as little doubt would not be overlooked in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, acting under responsible advisers. Then comes the demand—

"That all the office-bearers in these Colleges should be appointed by a board of trustees, of which the Roman Catholic prelates of the province in which any of those Colleges shall be erected shall be members."

I have already said that to a governing board, as contradistinguished from the central and Executive Government, there is an insuperable objection. To that demand, therefore, we cannot consent. Then comes the proposal for appointing Roman Catholic professors to certain classes. The memorial states—

"That the Roman Catholic pupils could not attend the lectures on history, logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, geology, or anatomy, without exposing their faith or morals to imminent danger, unless a Roman Catholic professor shall be appointed for each of those chairs."

Upon the subject of history I can conceive some difficulty, as it touches upon the confines of religious instruction: at the same time, of the two courses, I would rather exclude the chair of history altogether, than come under the stipulation to fill it with professors of one religious persuasion in preference to another. In the case of metaphysics and moral philosophy, I can see no possible reason or necessity for requiring professors of any particular creed, in order to render them competent teachers in those branches of instruction; and as for the other three branches, logic, geology, and anatomy, it is entirely out of the question to stipulate that they shall be Roman Catholics. Then follows the proposal—

"That if any president, vice-president, professor, or office-bearer in any of the new Colleges, shall be convicted before the Board of Trustees of attempting to undermine the faith or injure the morals of any student in those institutions, he shall be immediately removed from his office by the same Board."

I attach the utmost importance to the necessity of adopting ample precautions against any such attempt; and I believe the most efficient you can adopt is the vesting of a summary power of removal in the Government—that Government possessing visitatorial powers, to be entrusted to certain visitors, who shall be of different religious persuasions. The next demand is—

"That as it is not contemplated that the students shall be provided with lodging in the new Colleges, there shall be a Roman Catholic chaplain to superintend the moral and religious instruction of the Roman Catholic students belonging to each of those Colleges; that the appointment of each chaplain with a suitable salary shall be made on the recommendation of the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese in which the College is situate; and that the same prelate shall have full power and authority to remove such Roman Catholic chaplain from his situation."

I have already said that any such appointment by endowment from the State, or the existence of any authority which shall have such a control and command over the conduct of the pupils as to render their attendance within the walls of the College upon any particular lectures or any form of divine worship compulsory, we consider to be wholly inadmissible. At the same time, I do think, for the purpose of securing discipline, superintendence, control, and training in morals and in religion, it may be desirable to let into the College under private endowments professors or teachers for the purposes of lecturing in ethics and divinity. When we go into Committee I should not be unwilling to add words to the Bill affording a facility of that nature. I have now endeavoured succinctly, but plainly and openly, to answer the leading objections that have been stated to the measure. I am of opinion that it is of the last importance to consider how education has advanced amongst the lower classes of the people in Ireland. You have now under the national scheme, according to the best authority, and apart from all other modes of education, between 400,000 and 500,000 of the lowest classes in Ireland receiving education. You have Trinity College extending the benefits of education to the highest classes, including the Catholics, for in that respect it is not exclusive; but you want the connecting link—a link which I consider to be absolutely necessary with a view to the welfare, and I might almost say the safety of the country. In my opinion these Colleges will supply it. I have already said that I believe the time is not distant when these new Colleges might be united to a university. I do not recede from that opinion; but I think that the period for deciding that question will be after those Colleges have been founded, and when, having been for a short time in operation, they shall contain students ready to seek for honours in a university to be provided by the State. I am satisfied that the present social condition of the people in Ireland, particularly with reference to the education which the humbler classes are receiving under the national scheme, demands the present measure. If I wanted to establish the injustice of the designation with which the hon. Member for the University of Oxford has branded the scheme proposed under this Bill, I might appeal to the testimony of the hon. Member for Belfast, in which I quite agree; for I sincerely believe that the national acheme of education, so far from being an irreligious scheme of education, affords the best evidence I can adduce in favour of the Bill. I am assured, on the authority of some of the heads of the Established Church in Ireland, that if you take the children, Roman Catholic and Protestant, educated in the National Schools, in any part of Ireland, and compare their knowledge of the Scriptures, and of their moral duty, with that of the children educated in the National Schools in this country, where religious instruction is strictly attended to by the pastors of the Established Church, they will not suffer by the contrast or comparison. I am satisfied, therefore, that the spread of the great truths of religion by these National Schools throughout Ireland is the noblest effort of Christianity and kind feeling towards the great body of our fellow subjects in that country, and the most successful that has ever yet been made in their behalf. This Collegiate measure is avowedly an extension, and nothing more than an extension, of the present scheme of national education from the children of the humblest to the children of the middle and upper classes. [Mr. Colquhoun: Hear, hear.] I see that the hon. Member for Newcastle dissents from that proposition. In the original measure, introduced by Lord Stanley, when Secretary for Ireland, and when he and I were Colleagues of the noble Lord opposite under the Government of Lord Grey, it was proposed that some provisions should be made for the attendance of the children on Sunday at divine service at their respective places of worship; and the rule laid down in the letter of my noble Friend to the Duke of Leinster, required a registry to be kept in the school of the attendance or non-attendance of each child at his own place of worship. It was then said that there should be compulsory attendance; and under the National School system this attendance was at first enforced; but only for a while: it was objected to by Presbyterians and Church of England mem- bers as opposed to their conscientious scruples, and has accordingly been abandoned during the last eight years. Now, those who will attend at these Colleges will have arrived at an age when they have, more or less, the right to think for themselves; and it would be harsh, if not unjustifiable, when the basis of these institutions is the exclusion of religious teaching, within the walls of the College, so far as State endowment is concerned, that there should be authority in the College to enforce attendance on any particular form of worship. I am therefore satisfied that any attempt, apart from the college instruction, at enforcing attendance on religious worship would signally fail. With regard to founding exclusive lay colleges, with the view of providing separate instruction of the different sects, we are of opinion that it would not be so effective as the measure we now propose, while I am sure that such a proposition would meet with the greatest possible opposition from this country. In endeavouring to extend to the middle classes in Ireland the benefits of collegiate instruction, I am persuaded that such a measure as the present is the only one that will be found feasible or admissible. Certain I am that some such measure is indispensably necessary. We propose it deliberately—we shall adhere to it firmly; and we feel assured that, based on such principles as those on which it is founded, it will not be rejected by the House of Commons.

had been anxious not to address the House to-night, but after the fair and candid manner in which the right hon. Baronet had stated the course he meant to pursue with regard to this Bill, he felt compelled to make a few observations. He meant to join with the noble Lord the Member for Newark in opposing the further progress of this measure. He admitted the difficulty of dealing with the question of education in the present state of parties in Ireland, and he was ready to give his assent to what had been called the mixed system of education; but he could not but perceive that there were great difficulties in the way of carrying out this measure. By a mixed system of education he understood that the members of different sects and creeds should receive together the ordinary elements of education; that every facility should be given to the clergymen of different denominations to impart religious knowledge to those students who adhered to their form of worship. But his main objection was to the Government appointment of the professors. The right hon. Baronet said, you must leave to us the appointment of the professors, because I am determined that no professors shall be appointed in any of these Colleges who are likely to engage in proselytizing. That might be very well while the present Government remained in power; but how soon might they be removed, and who was to replace them? It was not long since they had been challenged to dissolve Parliament, when it was said the Ministry would be defeated. Now, suppose that were so, and that the Government was placed in the hands of such men as the hon. Member for Kent, what security would they have in Ireland that proselytism would not be the order of the day? He wanted some security that the Government, in appointing professors, should be responsible, not to public opinion in England, but to the general feelings of the people of Ireland. Then he wished to ask the hon. Member for Belfast, who advocated the system of Government, what would be the consequence if the appointment of professors were placed in the hands of the Government of the day? He did not fear the spread of religious infidelity—the people of Ireland were too religious and too moral for that—but there was a kind of infidelity which was nearly as bad as religious infidelity—infidelity to one's country. If the appointment of the professors were in the hands of the Government of the day, they would spread among the youth of Ireland infidelity to the interests of their country, and that he and every Irishman would deeply deplore. Neither would he agree to hold out to that class of Irishmen from whom professors were to be taken temptations to forsake their country's interests for sums of 300l., or 500l., or 800l. a year. He had great confidence in his countrymen, but nevertheless he was not prepared to say that they were altogether proof against temptation. He wished to have men in these colleges as free and unshackled as the professors in Trinity College, Dublin, or in Oxford or Cambridge; and, if they were not free, he would say, withhold your colleges altogether rather than give them what, in his mind, would prove a curse to the country. He did not wish for Catholic ascendancy; he believed the days of all ascendancy were numbered; but he would prefer a separate system of education to such a system as was proposed by this Bill. He knew it would be objected to him that, by the course he was taking, he was preventing the Irish people from obtaining the advantages of education. He could not help that. Deplorable as their present situation was with respect to education, he would rather that they remained for a time left to their own resources, than be thrown upon such a system as this. He hoped a time would come when an enlightened Government would prevail in this country. He hoped they would not always be annoyed by those horrible principles of bigotry which actuated the people of England now; but still, if they refused them the boon on any other terms than the present measure, they were prepared to do the best they could themselves for the education of the people. They would write for them the history of their country. [An hon. Member: Who would read it?] The hon. Member might not read it; but he would tell him that the people of Ireland would read it. At any rate the blame of the want of education would rest on those who proposed this measure.

said, the right hon. Baronet had referred, in a tone of gentle but marked censure, to an expression used by him in a former debate, when he presumed to characterize this scheme in a way which he was compelled to repeat from the taunts to which it had given rise, that it "was a gigantic scheme of godless education." What did his right hon. Friend say in answer to this charge? His right hon. Friend said, that he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had surely known his right hon. Friend too long and too well to utter such an imputation against him. Now, he could assure his right hon. Friend that he had never uttered that accusation against him, nor did he ever say that either the right hon. Gentleman or his Colleagues received this scheme as he received it, or viewed it in the same light as he viewed it. But, in his apprehension, it was as he had characterized it. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman individually: nor did he accuse the measure itself as being of an aggressive character; but it was a negation of all religion. What was the justification of the measure urged to-night by a leading Minister, who had charge of it? His right hon. Friend admitted that it was founded on the absence of religious instruction; that that might be right or wrong; but in the present circumstances of Ireland that was a necessary incident to any scheme of education. Now, that was admitting all which he had asserted it to be. His right hon. Friend had illustrated his position by examples drawn from the Universities of the three divisions of this great Empire. Into the case of Scotland he would not refer at that late hour of the night. But the right hon. Baronet had specially called the attention of the House to the religious education communicated in the Universities of England, particularly to Oxford, and more especially still to the College in which both his right hon. Friend and himself had received their education. He did not consider that House the place where he was called upon to give an account of what he had done or what he had neglected to do at Oxford. He admitted that opportunities were lost which could never be recalled; and he also admitted that much besides had been done which it was not necessary to advert to; but he would maintain that, if any young man passed through his University career without the regret which he had to feel, he might humbly thank God for it. Although he disclaimed being personally answerable to that House for his conduct at College, he felt called on to state that the imputation cast upon the general conduct of the College in question by his right hon. Friend was wholly without foundation. His right hon. Friend was utterly mistaken, if he supposed that the state of things to which he had referred existed now. It ought not to have been the case in his right hon. Friend's time, and he believed it was not in his own. In his time there was instruction in the general Christian faith, and in the Articles of the Church of England. One tutor in the University of Oxford had declared that he had matriculated 300 young men, every one of whom was more competent to answer questions on the doctrine of the Christian faith, and on the tenets of their own Church, than they would have been forty years ago, when they took their degree. Even if the lectures to which he had adverted were not given, instruction was secured by other means. Grotius and Burnet were studied. His right hon. Friend must know that theological knowledge did not come by instinct—that it must be encouraged and enforced—and that no young man could take his degree at Oxford without having re- ceived such Christian instruction as he would convey to the young men in Ireland? At the College he himself attended, there were weekly lectures in divinity, and his right hon. Friend had not made such inquiries into the present state of things as would justify the statement he had made. He wished that the Colleges founded in Ireland under the auspices of the Government, would enjoy such advantages in classical and general literature, and such theological instruction, as were now enjoyed by the elder Universities of this country. He agreed, and it was strange that he should agree and publicly acknowledge his agreement, with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell); but he was not ashamed to agree with Mr. O'Connell as to what was the only legitimate education for an immortal being; that it was not by the establishment of lecture shops, but by teaching Christian duties and the foundation on which these duties rested. They ought to carry out the same principle as the Roman Catholic prelates advocated, and insist that religion ought to be made the basis of all education whatever. It had been asked by the hon. Member for Bath what had the Fallopian tubes to do with the Gospel; but he concurred on that point with those astute men the Roman Catholic prelates, that the incidental observation of a professor of anatomy might be effective in determining the faith of a student and make him a Christian or an infidel; therefore he did not blame those bishops; but, on the contrary, he adopted their doctrines on that branch of the subject to the fullest extent. And he was, moreover, of opinion, that the House should carry out that principle, and insist on religion being made the fundamental basis of all education. He was quite willing to admit that the connexion between religion and some branches of science were not in all cases obvious at first; but he would maintain that the teacher of any branch was capable of doing much good or evil according as he was disposed. Therefore he (Sir R. H. Inglis) could not but concur with the Roman Catholic bishops, though of a necessity he totally differed with them respecting the claim which they set up to the appointment of these professorships, and also as to the endowment of their religion by the State. He admitted the power of Parliament to establish whatever system it pleased; but he entirely denied its right to do so In the present instance Her Majesty's Government would have done better if they had made the established religion of the State the foundation of these Colleges, than to deprive the people of Ireland of all religion, as they proposed. He could not admit the principle of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that these Colleges should be endowed with funds for the support of the clergy of three denominations in Ireland; nor did he agree with his noble Friend who seconded it, that the demands of the Roman Catholic bishops should be conceded. The right hon. Baronet had pointed to his 400,000 pupils under the national system of education as a proof of success in the system about to be adopted; but if he were informed aright that system was not so impartially administered as to prevent proselytism. He did not deprecate proselytism, because it was an evidence of sincere belief; but he wished the House to take the right hon. Baronet's argument at its worth. The hon. Baronet concluded by stating that, though he differed in some respects from both his noble Friends, he concurred in the general object which they had in view, and he therefore hoped the House would adopt the Amendment.

explained that between the years 1810 to 1812, no student in Christchurch, Oxford, intending to take his degrees, was compelled to attend any theological lecture or instruction, other that at chapel, without sermon at the roll-call.

thought no one could doubt the great advantages of an extended system of education; and every one who knew the state of Ireland must feel that it would be beneficial to all classes there. It was equally certain that every parent, wherever he sent his child to be instructed, wished him to be brought up in the same religious principles he himself professed. The question for him to ask was, whether he could adopt the system offered by the State, and accept its benefits without sacrifice of principle? There were two modes of education — individual and mixed. He had never heard of any objection to the latter. He had never heard it asserted that it was necessary for the Professor of Anatomy at Trinity College being a Roman Catholic. In fact, Roman Catholics were in the habit of studying anatomy in all the medical schools of Scotland and England. There was great advantage in having Dr. Buckland as a professor of geology, but he had never heard, although that study was said to have a tendency to infidelity, that a geological professor should necessarily be a Roman Catholic. He thought the omission from the proposed plan of a theological professorship might be wise; but if the object was to prevent polemical discussion, that might be counteracted by the permission to found Protestant professorships. After what Hume and other historians had said of Roman Catholics, he should be glad to see a Roman Catholic professor of history, and was also desirous for a chair of moral philosophy. He thought that provision ought to be made for chaplains (not exclusively Roman Catholic, but also Presbyterian and Church of England chaplains) who should have the moral guidance of the youths in these Colleges. It would be wrong to suppose that the question of education in Ireland was settled by this Bill. That great end would not be accomplished until they either created endowments in a new establishment, open to all sects, or broke down the system of exclusion in Trinity College. He trusted that the Bill would go into Committee and be there amended, and made a measure of great importance to Ireland.