a sentiment that was not consistent with now brought forward the Motion for going | The next statement of the hon. Baronet into Committee on the Bill at twenty was, that the Jesuits had caused the disminutes after eleven o'clock; and at that turbances in Switzerland; but he must late hour the House was called upon to have forgotten that Mr. Strauss had been pronounce a decision on one of the most Protestant Professor of Theology at Zuimportant subjects brought before them rich. [Sir R. Inglis: And had been exduring the Session, and which was now pelled.] Tardily expelled. He would not first submitted to their deliberate consider- at this time of day discuss the merits of ation. The Bill proposed to repeal the the Jesuits: he thought that their serAct of Supremacy--the Act prohibiting vices in the cause of civilization had been Jesuits from crowding into the country long acknowledged: quæ regio in terris the Act which prevented Roman Catholic nostri non plena laboris was their motto, bishops from assuming the titles of the sees and every clime and every age had shared of the Established Church; and it also, he in the benefits they had conferred, alapprehended, went to remove the restric- though it was true that they were not the tions which prevented Roman Catholic owners of 40,000 acres in New Zealand. processions from taking place publicly For himself he had been educated by through the streets of every city and town Jesuits, and he had never heard from one in England. He had understood from a right hon. Baronet, that Her Majesty's piety, patriotism, humanity, and liberality: Ministers had had under their considera- he therefore took this opportunity of tion some of the laws which the present Bill proposed to repeal; but whether such repeal originated with them or with the hon. Member, he viewed the fact with deep regret. Notwithstanding the applause bestowed upon the Jesuits by the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, it could not be denied that in public opinion, or in public prejudice (call it which people would), there were two terms of reproach which were always connected with the assumed profession of the parties; and to be like a Jew or like a Jesuit was always a designation of disfavour. To the Jesuits, he believed, was to be attributed the present unhappy condition of Switzerland. Regarding the Bill as a repeal of the few remaining protections of the Protestant Church, he could not but oppose it; and for that reason, he moved that it be committed on that day three months. Mr. Newdegate seconded the Amend ment. bearing his humble testimony to the obligations they had conferred upon mankind. It would be well if the education of the Roman Catholic gentry in Ireland he defied any man to show a single book were always entrusted to the Jesuits; for from the Jesuit press that contained a sentence or a sentiment inconsistent with He contended genuine Christianity. that the members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy placed on the Com mission under the Charitable Trusts Bill, had not been fairly treated. True it was that Dr. Murray, Dr. Crolly, and Dr. Denvil had been termed archbishops and bishops, and had been allowed precedence of the Earl of Devon, but they had neither local habitation nor name, for it was not stated of what places they were archbishops and bishops. This was an inconsistency which had given offence to the whole Roman Catholic body. Mr. Newdegate said, that he had not. been prepared to address the House, and he should not have presumed to second the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, if he had not been deeply impressed with the importance of the subject. This Bill proposed to per Mr. Sheil said, that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, ought to be the last man to object to monastic institutions in this country. As to the intercourse between this country and Rome, it seemed to him much better that it should be open and avowed, than that a sort of backstairs illegitimate in-mit the Roman Catholic hierarchy to astrigue and liaison should be carried on by Mr. Petre with that lady, who, in the opinion of Protestants, did not bear the best reputation. The hon. Baronet had asserted that Jesuits and Jews were coupled in public prejudice; but at least one Member of the Government might be found who would advocate the cause of the latter. sume the titles of certain sees, and, among other things, to permit the conducting of their processions in public. Now matters of mere name or title, and processions, however much they might inflame that feeling of indignation which certain measures of Her Majesty's Government had excited in the minds of the Protes tant people of this country, were, after all, to the Jesuits; and he called upon those trifles, as compared with the final propo- statesmen who had supported the Bill of sition of this Bill, which was to remove 1829, to justify their actions then, by their those clauses of the Relief Bill of 1829, conduct now. which related to and prohibited the in- Sir James Graham wished to correct a stitution of regular monastic orders, par- misconception of what he had said on ticularly that of the Jesuits, that most a former day; he had not said that Go. rigid and most ambitious order of the veroment was ready to take into conRoman Church; a sect, which embraced sideration a measure to repeal certain in its institution the most dangerous and clauses in the Relief Act of 1829. On worst elements of a secret society, whose the second reading of the present meahistory had been marked in every country sure, he had expressly claimed that Miniswhere they had been tolerated, by scenes ters should not be considered pledged upon of confusion and disorder. What was the the question. What he had said was, that latest intelligence of them? That they had the Commissioners had been directed to been commanded to remove from France ; prepare a bill strictly limited to the recomand this very spring they had set Switzer- mendations in their Report; and in the land in a blaze by grasping at the educa- Other House the Lord Chancellor had tion of her freeborn sons. The right hon. stated that the Government was not at all Member for Dungarvon had endeavoured pledged upon the subject. to vindicate the order from the imputa- Mr. M. J. O'Connell was anxious that tions which their whole history entailed Ministers should pledge themselves to reupon them, and had stated, that having sist what was now required, because he been educated among them, he had never was sure from experience that very soon known illiberal opinions, or principles ad- after they had pledged themselves upon verse 10 free institutions, inculcated by any question they gave way. If they now them. Of the advantages in education, pledged themselves to maintain the absurd for which the right hon. Member was in exclusions of the Bill of 1829, he had debted to the Jesuits, the House had con- more than a hope that they would aban. stant proof, and he (Mr. Newdegate) fully don them in the next Session. The truth believed the right hon. Member, that he was, that the clauses had only been inhad never known improper or dangerous serted to satisfy the conscience of that principles inculcated by them; for it had exemplary, religious, and moral monarch, ever been the policy of that order only to George IV.; and his reign being at an end, sow such seed in minds they found adapted people could now consider what they were for its reception; and he was convinced really worth. The onus was upon the opthat the mind of the right hon. Member ponents of the Bill to show that these would have rejected such instruction, outrageous laws should remain on the Staand that his teachers knew it: such had tute Book, which could not be enforced. ever been the system of the Jesuits. The He hoped that his hon. Friend would go House might have sufficient evidence from to a division, to see who was for and who documents in the British Musuem ; but was against it. His own opinion was, that did these facts need such illustration ? He all restrictions upon religious belief were appealed from all history to the occur- as unjust to men as they were insulting lo rences of the present day on the Continent, God. as evidence of character of this sect: and Mr. Bickham Escott felt disposed to it was with deep regret he had heard from oppose the Bill, because the Governinent her Majesty's Secretary for the Home had asked time for the consideration of Department, that a proposition for re- the subject, so as to bring in a measure. moving the only safeguards against the He believed that the Bill was founded on propagation of this sect in Great Britain the principles of justice and sound policy; should receive his consideration. He and he considered the Acts alluded to, to (Mr. Newdegate) hoped that the right be a disgrace to the Statute Book. If he hon. Baronet would not be blind to the heard that it was the intention of Her circumstances connected with this sect at Majesty's Ministers to do away with those present throughout Europe. For his own enactments on account of religion, he part be entered his solemn protest against would not vote for the Motion ; but if that the introduction of any measure, the effect was not the case, he should give it his of which could be only to give countenance cordial support, Sir R. Peel stated, that last Session he had brought in a Bill for the repeal of certain Acts which affected a certain part of Her Majesty's subjects. At that time it was intimated to him that he was not justified in giving relief to one class, and giving no relief of a similar character to another class. The whole subject was so complicated, and involved in so many Statutes of an ancient date, that he stated he would refer it to Commissioners to consider those laws. The Commission was composed of very eminent men, and their Report on the subject was not in the possession of the Government until the last week in May, and he had not seen it until June. Now, from the complicated state of public business connected with the various departments, and also from the necessity of considering the measures to be submitted to the House, and also from their sitting in that House from eight to nine hours a day, for four or five days in the week, it was utterly impossible to give full consideration to all the subjects that might come forward. The question of these laws had also reference to persons keeping schools, who were not Roman Catholics, but Dissenters from the Establishment. The Government felt that an impartial view should be taken, and that the measure should comprise all classes; they had, therefore, desired the Commissioners to prepare a Bill on the subject of these ancient Statutes. He could not pledge the Government more than to say that they would give the fullest consideration to the measures which should be proposed by the Commissioners. The enactments of the Bill of 1829 were of a very different character, and he was not able to make any promise or any pledge on the subject. No doubt, as had been stated, there would be considerable opposition out of doors to any proceeding on the subject. He fairly owned that there were many enactments which should not be continued; and he had no hesitation in saying that he was ready to encounter opposition on the subJect of the removal of these enactments from the Statute Book. He could not pledge himself to any particular clauses of the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he could assure him that the subject should receive the fullest consideration. He was now speaking of the ancient enactments, and did not refer to those which were imposed when the CaVOL LXXXII. {Series Third tholic Relief Bill passed. He hoped,'after what had passed that the hon. Gentleman would not press the measure. Lord John Russell considered that the Bill involved two very separate questions. The first was, whether they should consider with a view to their repeal certain ancient enactments. On this part of the subject, after what had fallen from both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the House should be satisfied with their declarations. It certainly would at that moment be difficult for the Government to say what clauses of the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be repealed; he therefore would suggest that this part of the subject be left to them. The other question was of a very different character; he alluded to that part which referred not to any old restrictions, but to those imposed by the Act of 1829, he meant the disallowing clauses in the Bill, introduced by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. The question was, whether they were prepared to make alterations in this law. This subject might have been referred to the consideration of the Commissioners, or it might, without this, have been considered by the Government as a question of policy, in the Amendment of the law of 1829. They had done neither, however. They now stated that there would be no reference to this Act in the measure they intended to propose. He, for one, was prepared to go into Committee on those clauses of the Act of 1829. He did not say that he was at once prepared to repeal all those clauses, but he was willing to go into Committee to deliberate on the subject. He believed that they might repeal those disallowing clauses which prevented a Roman Catholic bishop assuming a title held by a bishop of the Established Church. He could not conceive any good ground for the continuance of this restriction. With respect to the question of the Jesuits and the regular orders, he did not think that the Act of 1829 was satisfactory; but he should like to look into the laws of other countries in Europe; and above all, into those of Catholic countries, on the subject of these religious orders. As a general principle, he should say, do away with all these restrictions; but if they found that in Catholic countries there were some regulations as to the registration of the members of an order, or similar restraint, he should say that it was a fair subject L 30. and passed :-Arrestment of Wages (Scotland); Brazil Slave Trade; Jurors (Ireland); Timber Ships; Assessed Taxes Composition. PRIVILEGE.] The Duke of Richmond wished to call the attention of their Lordships to a petition relating to privilege. It was from Thomas Baker, of Albion House, Great Church-lane, Hammersmith, formerly superintendent of the C division of the Metropolitan Police Force, but now retired upon a pension. It stated, that he had been called upon to attend and give evidence before their Lordships' Select Committee on the Laws relating to Gaming; and that a person of the name of John Harlow had commenced an action for damages against him for words spoken upon that occasion; that John Harlow intended to proceed to trial on the 31st instant, at the Croydon assizes. The petitioner had not pleaded to the action, but prayed their Lordships to take the premises into consideration, and to grant him such protection as might seem meet. The noble Duke observed, that Mr. Baker had not volunteered his evidence, but had been called upon to give it, having been inspector of that division of the Police, whose duty it was to watch the gambling houses in the district. He had been examined upon oath, and, under the sanctity of that oath, had no doubt spoken the Private.-1 Marquess of Westminster's Estate; Saint truth. The noble Duke said, that he had Matthew's (Bethnal Green) Rectory. 3. and passed :-Great North of England, Clarence, and Hartlepool and Junction Railway; Keyingham Drainage; Forth and Clyde Navigation, and Union Canal Junction; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; North Wales Mineral Railway; Great Western Railway, Ireland (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone). PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Warrington and Latchford, for the Suppression of Intemperance, particularly on the Sabbath.-From Ministers and others of Southampton, and several other places, for substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths.-From Wiveliscombe, against the Real Property Deeds Registration Bill.-By Duke of Richmond, from Brede and numerous other places, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax. - By Lord Lyttelton, from tion Act.-By Duke of Richmond, from Stockholders and others of the Colony residing at Clarence River, for Alteration of Law relating to Territorial Revenue and Disposal of Land (New South Wales).-From Matthew Phillips, Surveyor, &c., praying that evidence given by him before a Committee of this House some years since, may be From Committee of Church Missionary Society of Africa and the East, for effectually securing to Natives of New Zealand, the full enjoyment of their Lands. Charles Miller, M.A., for Repeal of the Tithe Commuta reconsidered, and in favour of the Field Gardens Bill. * For Division List see End of Volume. known Inspector Baker for a great many years, and he had served not only during the Peninsular war, but at Waterloo, and he believed that a more honourable man did not exist. It did not become him, not being a law Lord, to offer any opinion on the question; but he begged to be informed what course it was fit, under the circumstances, to pursue? The Lord Chancellor: It is perfectly clear that if the statement contained in the petition be true, this action cannot be sustained. The petitioner alleges that the has been brought, were spoken by him words, for the using of which the action before a Committee of your Lordships' House. I believe an indictment may be maintained for perjury against a party who has sworn falsely before a court of justice; but I apprehend it is perfectly clear no action can be sustained for words spoken by a witness in evidence before any such court. But that is not the question at present-the question is, whether, under the circumstances disclosed by the petition, we should protect the defendant. It is stated in the declaration that the words were spoken "in the presence and hearing of the Committee." It is possible, therefore, that the plaintiff may, court of requests, were summoned to represent his case to be of this description, the bar, and informed, according to your that the defendant had repeated the words Lordships' determination, that they would in the presence and hearing of the Com- both be committed if they did not at once mittee of the House, and yet may not abandon all legal proceedings. I canhave been at the time speaking as a wit- not doubt that your Lordships are now ness upon oath. I should recommend prepared to summon both this plaintiff your Lordships to appoint a Committee and his attorney at your bar; and if it for the purpose of searching for prece- shall turn out that the action is brought dents to regulate our proceedings. Cir- for words spoken by the witness in evicumstances make it incumbent on your dence before your Committee, that you Lordships to attend more particularly to will commit to prison the plaintiff and his this matter, because we are ourselves attorney, if they persist in prosecuting the a court of justice in the last resort. If action. It will be utterly impossible for this case should go on, it may ulti- you to exercise your iniquisitorial powmately come before us for decision as a ers, unless you protect the witnesses in Court of Appeal. I, therefore, beg to the evidence they give. The Committee move that a Select Committee be ap- in question was a most important one. It pointed to search for precedents, and was to inquire into the frauds alleged to that the said petition be referred to such arise from gaming. There were many Committee. witnesses examined, and many transactions inquired into, and a great deal of fraud and dishonesty disclosed. If any person is permitted to bring an action against a witness who should have disclosed that person's infamy, in what situation would the witness stand, and in what a situation would your Lordships be? You would ever after deprive yourselves of the power of instituting any such inquiry. Your privileges are now assailed in the most alarming manner, and unless you make a resolute stand they are irrevocably gone. I have heard it suggested that the witness might have repeated these words at another time; that after having given evidence before the Committee he might have repeated in the presence of the Committee, not upon oath, and not judicially, what he had said before, and therefore that might be considered malicious, and sufficient to form a ground of action. But Lord Campbell: I move, my Lords, as an Amendment, that the plaintiff and his attorney be summoned to attend at the bar of this House. In my opinion there is no occasion for any Committee no Committee can be of the slightest service. There is no doubt that you have here an action brought against a witness, for evidence given on oath before a Committee of your Lordships' House. I entirely agree with what has been laid down by my noble and learned Friend, that no such action in point of law can be maintained; but shall you allow a witness who has been summoned before your Committee to be harassed by such an action? Nay, more my Lords, will you allow your privilege of summoning witnesses, and of examining them before a Committee, to be submitted to any Judge who may happen to sit on the trial of that case? I do say, my Lords, that if you are pre-in his petition the party declares that he pared to imitate the example set you by your ancestors, you will immediately interfere, and put a stop to this action. The most recent case on the question of this privilege which has occurred before your Lordships' House was one which took place during the time when that illustrious Judge, Lord Eldon, presided on the Woolsack. It arose out of an action brought against one of your messengers for taking an umbrella belonging to a visitor, who was standing at your Lordships' bar when the House was sitting as a court of justice. Upon the Motion of Lord Eldon, the plaintiff and his attorney, who had commenced an action before the never did use the words unless when he was examined upon oath before the Committee. It, however, may be learned from the plaintiff and his attorney, if called to the bar of the House, what is the real ground of the action. If it be for words spoken on some other occasion, then let the action proceed, and let a jury give a verdict upon it; but if it should turn out, as I have no doubt it will, that the action has been brought for words spoken by the witness when on oath before the Committee, then I implore your Lordships, in accordance with all the precedents you have ever acted upon, that you will at once interpose to protect this witness. In |