Gambar halaman

would probably tell them under whose ad- prevent the attorney from getting his costs ; vice he had acted, and what counsel it was but in the present case there was a boná who drew up the declaration.

fide cessation of the action, and the attorMr. Granger said, that he could not ney could not proceed with it even though agree with the noble Lord the Member for he should lose his costs. Sunderland, who said that it was inexpe- Mr. Borthwick said he was authorized dient to call the attorney to the bar until to say, on the behalf of the parties who he was prepared to state that he would I were the subjects of the Motion before the make a submission to the House. There House, that if they had committed any was no doubt that bringing an action, breach of the privileges of the House, they under the circumstances of this case, was a were sorry for having done so. breach of the privileges of this House, and Sir Robert Peel said, that what those as they had already dealt with the principal parties were prepared to do could not for a in the action, he did not see why they moment enter into his mind so as to inshould not have the attorney at the bar. He fluence the course which he should recomthought the most dignified course to pur- mend to the House; and he, therefore, sue was to call in the attorney at once, and could not feel the more inclined to call if he were prepared for submission, then them to the bar, because the House had they might postpone any further proceed- an assurance that they were sorry. It ings till to-morrow.

would be a shabby course, if they called in Viscount Howick stated that he had not those parties, because, forsooth, they knew said one word bearing the remotest ap- that they would express their sorrow at the proach to what the hon. Member (Mr. bar for the course which they had adopted Granger) had attributed to him. What with respect to this action. he said was, that the true mode of proceed- Mr. T. Duncombe said, that the right ing was, for the party to present a petition, hon. Baronet ought to bring the parties expressing his submission, as, by asking to the bar at once, or to discharge them him if he would submit, the House would altogether. If they gave the parties time invite refusal.

until to-morrow to consider what course Sir R. Peel said, that they had received they should pursue, there might be many the declaration of the plaintiff, to the effect learned Gentlemen in this town who would that he would not go on with the action ; advise them not to present a petition to the and after that declaration, it was quite clear | House expressing their submission. The the attorney could not proceed. All that question might then arise what redress an the attorney could do in the case was to individual was to have who was slandered express his contrition for having under- or defamed before a Committee of that taken the action, and after that expression House. If a witness gave false evidence of contrition, the question for the House to before an Election Committee, he was entertain was, whether or not the expres- likely to be indicted for perjury; and he sion of his contrition was to be received as did not see why witnesses before other Parsufficient. He thought they had properly liamentary Committees ought not to be disposed of the case of the principal ; but equally amenable to the law. It would he was not so clear in his opinion as to the appear as if the House must in the end course recommended of entering into a con- allow an action, if a witness gave false and test with the attorney, as the case could not slanderous evidence. In the present case now go on, the principal having expressed the plaintiff stated, that by the evidence of his intention of not proceeding further Parrott, he had been ruined in his profeswith it.

sion, in his purse, and in his prospects; Mr. Hume hoped the right hon. Baronet and what redress could he obtain? He would, under those circumstances, either thought it would be better to discharge the move that the order for the attendance of order for attendance, and he should have the parties be discharged, or that they been pleased if all the parties had been should be summoned to appear without mentioned in the Resolution discharging delay.

Mr. Phillips. Sir T. Wilde said, that in this case the Sir T. Wilde said, that the Resolution attorney could not go on without the con discharging Phillips was directed only to sent of the plaintiff

. There were cases him, because no other parties were then in which the attorney might proceed to before them. There was a very great difsave his costs, when there was collusion ference between the evidence of an indibetween the plain;iff and defendant, to vidual before a Committee of that House,

brought was a breach of privilege. There. upon he had no doubt what would follo v. Knowing the will and determination of the House in the matter, the parties would bow in submission to them, and would say that they had been wrongly advised in the step which they had taken; that they were mistaken in what they did; that they were sorry for it; and that now, upon being informed what was the determination of this House, they were

and the evidence in a court of law; for be fore the Committee of that House there was no particular issue to be tried, and the witness had his mind ransacked by every question which the Committee pleased, being left no option. So that where questions were put at large to a witness, and in such a manner, it would be monstrous to confine him to the technical rules of evidence. When a man volunteered evidence of a defamatory character, the person so defamed would be in a very different posi-ready to submit. That was the simple tion as regarded reparation; but where a witness was compelled to give evidence, it

would be monstrous to allow the com

acknowledgment by the attorney, who presented a petition, that he was the party who had brought the action, and he stated his reasons for bringing it. There

course to adopt. The noble Lord virtually proposed to shut up the whole matter. Could they do the parties any inmon law means of punishment to be jury by calling them in? Could they risk brought against him, as if he had volun- the dignity of the House by calling them teered it. They should not come to a in? He was desirous that they should be side-wind decision as to what was to immediately called to the bar, and that be done for a person who had slanderous the proposal to postpone their appearance evidence given against him before a Com-till to morrow should be rejected. mittee of the House. The question as to Sir T. Wilde apprehended that the what justice should be rendered to a person noble Lord was quite right in suggesting in such a situation should not be gone into at present, because it would not facilitate immediately in. They had resolved that that the other party should not be called the decision of the present question, which the commencement of the action was a was, what was to be done with the attor-breach of privilege. They had also an ney in the action? He agreed with his hon. Friend that the other question was an important one; and if his hon. Friend should bring it before the House, he should be ready to render him all the assistance in his power. At the present it was expedient that the House should confine their attention to the question, whether it were proper that they should call the attorney to the bar to answer for his conduct, or whether, instead of calling him immediately forward, they should postpone calling him before them till to-morrow? He hoped the House was prepared to main-compelled to act, they should give the tain its privileges; but he hoped also, that as it was not necessary to do so, they would not embark at present on the question raised by his hon. Friend. He thought that all that was expedient now was, that the parties who had violated the privileges of the House should be called forward to


Mr. Roebuck observed that the noble Lord had suggested that the matter should rest where it was until to-morrow, and that the parties should, in the meantime, find out what the House had resolved upon. Now the dignified, straight forward, simple, and manly course was to bring them forward to the bar immediately, and to say to them that they (the House) had read their petition, and had resolved that the action which they had VOL. LXXXII. {S} Third

fore there was no doubt but that he was

guilty of a breach of privilege. The only thing in which he differed from the noble Lord was, that they should now come to a resolution that their privileges had been infringed, and then adjourn the matter over till to-morrow. In order to avoid placing themselves in a situation of being

parties an opportunity of presenting a petition, and making their peace with the House. [An hon. Member: If called now, they might apologize.] Apologize! How are they to apologize? The House could not accept an apology at the bar. The Parliamentary mode of apologizing was by petition. That was the only mode in which the House could entertain an apology. The more dignified course would be to adjourn the consideration of the subject till to-morrow. If they called the offending parties to the bar to-night, they would, he apprehended, be compelled to come to-night to some sort of resolution or another. If they must commit Mr. Edwards and Mr. Baker, as for breach of privilege, unless in the Parliamentary mode they made an apology to


the House, and if the House thought fit to sit still whilst the parties prepared their petition, all he could say was, that such was neither the usual nor the dignified course of proceeding. By adjourning the matter till to-morrow there would be no difficulty, as they might then vote that the parties had broken the privileges of the House, and then, if they thought fit to accept the apology, which the parties might make in the proper form, they might resolve that such apology was sufficient. It was not expedient to call them forward to-night, when, by their so doing, the parties would not have the opportunity of conciliating the House, and confessing their error.

Mr. Greene wished to ask the Speaker a question in reference to the point, as to whether a verbal apology at the bar was or was not sufficient to entitle a party to the indulgence of the House. He apprehended that a party standing at the bar, and there stating, in the presence of the House, that he regretted the course which he had taken, and praying the indulgence of the House, would adopt a course sufficient to maintain the privileges of the House, and that the House might act upon such a statement. If the parties were called to the bar, and were disposed to make such statement and application to the House, he apprehended that such would, in the present instance, be sufficient, without calling upon the parties to petition. Such a course would be quite sufficient to maintain the privileges of the House.

Sir James Graham wished, before the Speaker answered the question put to him, to remind him of what the right hon. Gentleman had most likely not forgotten, that on the first appearance of Howard at the bar of the House, submission was made verbally, and not by petition.

Mr. Speaker observed that the right hon. Baronet had reminded him of a case which supported the views which he had originally entertained of the matter, that it was not absolutely necessary that the parties should petition the House. If the parties should appear and submit themselves verbally at the bar of the Honse, that, he apprehended, would be sufficient. In this case it was necessary that the House should come to some determination as to what he should address to the parties when they were called to

the bar.

Mr. Bernal said, that although he was disposed to concur in what the hon. Member for Finsbury had said, he was also disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Thomas Wilde), who suggested that that question could not properly be brought forward on the present occasion. Unless they were prepared to say that the parties should be at once discharged, he was not disposed to have their attendance at the bar immediately.

Sir R. Inglis did not feel satisfied with the statement of the parties that they had acted in ignorance, because he saw in their declarations a most studied avoidance of any reference to the source whence they obtained their information.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that in the first petition which they had presented that evening, these gentlemen stated that they apprehended that the state of the law was that a witness was protected, except when he maliciously and slanderously stated facts which were not true, in giving his evidence; and that, as a witness was not pretected, under such circumstances, in a court of justice, they had argued that the protection of the House of Commons extended no further than that afforded to witnesses by a court of justice, and that it was under that impression that they had brought the action against the defendant. He had himself looked into the law on this matter, and found that there were strong opinions on the one side as well as on the other, as to whether witnesses were or were not to be protected who gave evidence in a court of justice of matters not true, with a slanderous and malicious intent.

Sir R. Peel would repeat that he thought they were entering into a very unworthy contest with the attorneys in the cause, as they had got a sufficient apology from the principal; and if any inducement were wanting to desist from proceeding further in the matter, it now appeared that an apology in a proper form was to be given immediately by the attorneys.

Mr. Granger observed, that to him the debate had been very unsatisfactory. He feared that their course to-night would teach the public that if a man were bold enough to stand at their bar and defy them, the House would shrink from proceeding against him.

Motion and Amendment withdrawn. Sir John Yarde Buller presented a petition from Charles Edwards, Thomas Baker, and the other parties summoned to appear before the House, stating that they were not aware, in bringing the action complained of, that they were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, expressing their contrition at having violated its privileges, and throwing themselves upon the indulgence of the House. Viscount Howick observed that all that now remained to be done was that the House should come to the same resolution as it had come to in the case of Mr. Phillips, and state that, in consideration that Charles Edwards, Thomas Baker, and others, had, in the petition presented by them, disclaimed all intention of violating the privileges of that House, and had expressed their contrition for their offence, and prayed for the lenient consideration of the House; on account of the same, the House did not deem it necessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence. He begged, therefore, to move that Resolution; and he would not prolong the discussion further, except to state, that nothing could be a more complete misapprehension of his views than what was stated by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Granger) when he observed that he (Lord Howick) and others were disposed to shrink from asserting the privileges of the House. He was disposed to maintain the privileges of the House.

A Resolution similar to that agreed to in the case of Phillips was adopted, and all the parties ordered to be discharged from further attendance on the House.

COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.] House in Committee on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill.

On Clause 14,

Mr. Borthwick wished that the students should be required to attend divine service in their respective churches and chapels daily; and also that the following clause be inserted after Clause 14:

"And for the better securing the due attendance of the students in the said Colleges for divine worship, according to the creeds which they severally profess to hold, be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for the president and professors, or other governing body of each of the said Colleges which shall be constituted in and by the said letters patent, to assign chapels within the precincts of each

College for the use of chaplains, to be endowed in the same manner and by the same authority as the professors; and that within such chapels brated twice every day, according to the forms prayers shall be said, and divine worship celerequired by such religious creeds as shall be recognised by such governing body; and that regulations shall be made for the due attendance of the students on divine worship at such of the said chapels as shall be approved by their parents or guardians respectively." He should likewise propose the omission of Clause 14. Having given his silent support to the principle of the Bill, he should not now avail himself of this opportunity of reopening that discussion which occupied the House on the second reading; but should state briefly the grounds on which he sought to introduce into the measure what he believed to be no change of principle, but an important provision for carrying into effect the objects Her Majesty's Government had in view. It was admitted on both sides of the House that no education could be sound that was not based on religion. Under whatever circumstances man was found, whether in savage or civilized life, the one motive which especially governed all his actions, and shaped his social and civil existence, was a religious motive. That was a principle in human nature which the Legislature was bound to recognise in bringing forward a measure for the education and improvement of the people. In fact, no legislation could be sound which did not recognise, and endeavour as far as possible to control and guide, the religious principle in man. The great difficulty in the present instance arose from the religious hostility among the professors of rival creeds. If, for example, Dr. Higgins, who had been elevated to the episcopal bench in his Church, the Bishop of Cashel, and Dr. Cooke of Belfast-a man who held a high rank in the Presbyterian Churchwere appointed to fill the chairs of the Professors of Theology in the new Colleges, he thought the dogmatic lectures of those men (eminent and talented as he admitted them to be) would be anything but calculated to promote religious charity among the students. The object of the proposition he made was to change the character of the religious instruction altogether-to make it, not didactic, but liturgic--to instruct the students, not by lectures delivered ex cathedra, but by means of the liturgy provided by their respective Churches. His object was to

place religious instruction in the Colleges | logy were instituted, religious rancour and about to be established in Ireland, on a uncharitable feeling among the students footing similar to that of Oxford and would be the inevitable result. He beCambridge. The hon. Member for Lis-lieved the Bill before the House was calkeard said he received no religious in-culated to effect the greatest good in Irestruction at Oxford, except what he re- land; and that the only impediment to ceived at chapel; and that there was less that good would be the 14th Clause as it religious instruction provided there for then stood. He believed the proposition the students than at the College at Edin- he made, if adopted, would communicate burgh. The hon. Gentleman, in saying far more religious instruction, while it so, was dealing with those unknown quan- would be free from the disadvantage of tities with which he had become so well intermixing that instruction with anything acquainted at Trinity. He himself (Mr. of a sectarian or uncharitable nature. Borthwick) had had opportunities of knowing that in the College of Edinburgh the students were asked no questions about religion, unless they were intended for the Church of Scotland; and in that case, they were required to attend the prelections of the Divinity Professor. But at Oxford and Cambridge, if a student atteaded chapel regularly during three years, he would have had an opportunity of hearing the whole of the Old Testament read three times, and the whole of the New Testament nine times, independently of the selections of the Liturgy. By this means, an entire system of Christian theology, from the first Sunday in Advent till the last Sunday in Trinity, was brought before the minds of the students. He could not conceive a more complete system of religious instruction than that afforded to the students at Oxford and Cambridge. It was told of Mr. Pitt, that while in Pembroke College, he never missed attended chapel morning or evening for a single day. If the provision which he had proposed were adopted, the tenets of the Church of England, and also those of the Roman Catholic Church, could be taught without bringing sectarian points before the minds of the students. As the Presbyterian Church had no liturgy, they might meet for daily prayer. The reason why it was not necessary to teach dogmatic theology to every student in Oxford and Cambridge was, because in the former there were seventeen chapels, and in the Sir J. Graham regretted that the course latter twenty-four, open twice every day. which he and his Colleagues thought it He saw no necessity for the appointment their duty to pursue, did not meet with the of professors of dogmatic theology. There approbation of the hon. and gallant Genwas no sectarian mathematics, no Roman tleman. The Bill, however, was one of Catholic geology, no Protestant anatomy.great importance, and not brought forward All that was necessary on the subject of without a strong sense of its necessity. general learning and science might be com- He thanked the hon. Gentleman for curmunicated without interfering with or en-tailing the observations he had intended couraging the sectarian prejudices of any to make, and for abstaining from a disbody. But if professors' chairs of theo- cussion of the general principles of the mea

Colonel Sibthorp wished it to be understood that in opposing this Bill he was influenced by no uncharitable feeling towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He entertained great respect for the talent of the Government, but deeply regretted their inconsistency. Consistency was the strongest and greatest virtue of a Government. But the present Government had exhibited a subservient expediency, and a strong desire to go to the opposite side. He regretted to see such Bills as this and the Maynooth Bill emanating from parties professing the Protestant religion. He could not place much reliance on the professions of men who acted so inconsistently; for he judged of men by their conduct and not by their professions. There were times when he could not believe that the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. the Secretrary of State for the Home Department could be capable of bringing forward such measures; but now those Gentlemen were playing the cards in a manner that no one had expected. He had opposed this Bill at its introduction; he should oppose it at the bringing up of the Report, and also at the third reading, and no modification of it would reconcile him to it. He regretted very much that the Government were acting with two faces under a hood, and not in the manner which they had led the country to believe they would act.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »