Drbatts anb Wreathing% in Varliament

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS REFORM.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Dr. NrcEoLL moved the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill; explaining its nature, much in the same way as it had been explained in the House of Lords.

It had been found impossible to carry a measure for abolishing the Diocesan Courts ; but the bill abolished the three hundred Peculiar Courts, and, while retaining, reformed the Diocesan Courts. It proposed the appointment of competent Judges approved by the Crown, acting in person, with fixed salaries; it introduced the power of receiving viva voce evidence; abolished every sine- cure in the courts ; consolidated the Arches with the Prerogative Courts in the two archiepiscopal provinces; required wills proved in the provincial courts to be sent to London, and there filed and registered within twenty-one days; abolished all !cruelties for non-attendance at divine worship ; facilitated the granting of marriage-licences; with other improvements. Ile urged the House not to cast to the winds such an improvement in the hope of getting something

more.

Sir GEORGE GREY opposed the bill; which was founded on a totally opposite principle to that of the bill introduced by Dr. Nicholl himself last year He conceded that the abolition of the Courts of Peculiars was a good step; and he agreed that the abolition of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesias- tical Courts in the cases of tithes, defamation, and smiting, was a great advaatageJ 1l,t ,14,..leved that if they now established thirty•five Eccle- siastical Cobrtk'te tinue in operation, with Judges not receiving mise- rable salaries, there we ld be little hope of further reform. All the autho- rhief were for abolishing', the Diocesan Courts; and last year Dr. Nicholl bad shown that the grounds for retaining their jurisdiction, originally founded in superstition, altogether failed. The Judges were to have the powers of the Judges at Westminster, even to committal for contempt ; a most dangerous power to be intrusted to barristers of four years' standing. lie condemned the course taken with respect to the measure of last year. Dr. Nichol] read the bill pro forma ; and then, in Committee, he extracted the whole principle of the bill, and cut the ground from under those who supported the bill on the general principle. Nothing could be more unfair and unparliamentary than such a course, followed up by a declaration that the House of Commons had refused to pass the bill, after they had agreed to the second reading last year by a majority of 80. Let Dr. Nichol' bring in a bill merely to abolish the Pecu- liar Courts,'Itaving the Diocesan Courts untouched, and he would support it. Sir George moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that if the measure were considered merely as an instalment, he could not support it ; but if it were accounted a final measure, it should have his vote.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR opposed the bill; suggesting some different projects. Sir JAMES GRAHAM defended the bill, not as that which Ministers would have preferred, but as the best they could have carried.

He felt it his duty frankly to declare, that he retained his preference, in point of' principle, for the measure of last year. He thought still, that the contentious Ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be removed to the Metropolis, under the control of a learned and extensive bar. But as to further legislation on the subject, his experience of Ecclesiastical Courts would lead him undoubtedly to affirm his candid belief, that if the present one passed, it would not at all events be in his life that any extended reforms on the subject would be carried into operation. (" Hear !" and a laugh.)

The bill was opposed, especially on the ground of its variance from the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. HOWARD ELFHINSTONE, and Mr. WATSON: it was supported by Colonel SIBTHORP ; and on a division, the amendment was negatived, by 158 to 59.

The main motion having been put, Mr. Trroares DUNCOMBE renewed the opposition to the measure. He remarked that, lest year, Sir Robert Peel declared the bill to be an honest measure, "so help him God "; and as the present bill altogether differed from that, it vas to be in- ferred that it was Hot an honest measure.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that his declaration meant that the bill was honest in its motive and purpose ; and be vindicated the conduct of Government in yielding to an opposition that could not be overcome. Mr. CHARLES BULLER argued, that this only explained away the honesty of the present bill. Finally, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday.

FACTORY BILL : MR. FERRAND AND HIS CHARGES.

On Monday, Mr. ROEBUCK stated, that as the motion of which he had given notice—an instruction to restrict the Committee from enter- taining any proposition in the Factory Bill to limit the hours of labour for persons above eighteen years of age—could not be entertained at that stage, he should make the motion on going into Committee.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the second reading of the bill. On which Mr. HUME protested, that he never would agree to any measure inter- fering 'with adult labour ; and then there were some desultory remarks on the proper mode of proceeding with the bill. Mr. THOMAS Dow- CONBE said, that he had meant to move, on the second reading, that the bill be referred to a Committee up stairs; but he thought that it would be better to do so on the motion for going into Committee of the whole House ; and he gave notice accordingly. It was of no use for the House to go on deceiving themselves or the working classes: there is a strong impression among the working classes that the reduction of time to ten hours would not reduce wages : the anticipation that it would reduce wages was the principal ground of Sir James Graham's opposition to Lord Ashley's proposal : but the operatives complain that the House attended less to their representations than to the millowners ; and it was proper that an investigation of those points should be had. He censured Lord Ashley for proposing to allow the bill to slip through as far as the third reading— The noble Lord was to fake a flying shot, it seemed, at the bill as it was about to pass; but he would find, when he came to fire his second barrel, that the bill was out of the way.

Lord ASHLEY read an extract of a letter from the Shorf-time Com- mittee of Lancashire approving of his conduct. Mr. AGLIONBY depre- cated Mr. Duncombe's doing any thing that would endanger the success of Lord Ashley's motion. Mr. Joint STUART WORTLEY questioned Mr. Duncombe's authority to lecture Members ; and called upon the Speaker to state the proper order of dealing with the two motions that had been notified. The SPEAKER said, that Mr. Duncombe might make his motion as an amendment on the order of the day for going into Com- mittee on Friday ; and after that was disposed of, on the motion that he should leave the Chair, it would be competent for any Member to move any resolution, provided that resolution were relevant to the matter be- fore the House. Mr. STANSFIELD announced his intention to propose in Committee, the addition of several clauses affecting other branches of manufactures besides the woollen trade. Mr. Ross declared, that com- munication with his constituents at Belfast had reversed his previous impression in favour of a Ten-hours Bill. Mr. HINDLEY remarked, that this change of opinion proved the necessity of sifting the matter to the bottom ; and he charged Sir James Graham with bearding the House of Commons by the help of a tyrant minority.

Here the debate took a more personal turn. Mr. MARK PHILIPS challenged Mr. Hindley to reconcile his opinions in the House with his conduct out of it ; since he had made himself notorious some years back by infringing all the provisions of the Factory Act. If they once began to try the experiment of interfering with adult labour, they must regu- late labour. The whole thing was a delusion on the working-classes, to which he would not be a party. Mr. IlmunEy explained: in.1836, he desired that the Factory Bill should be strictly observed in his fac- tory; but on going to the North of England, after an absence in Lon- don, he found that his injunction had not been obeyed ; for the factory had worked twelve and a half hours a day, because they had worked twelve and a half hours at Staleybridge. A charge was brought before the Magistrates, who inflicted the heaviest fines ever imposed-40/. and 20/. on each of the partners. His partner's sons came to ask him how they should act ; and he told them that they must pay the penalty of what they had done. Mr. FEastArre• challenged Mr. Philips to face big constituents and ascertain their opinion respecting a Ten-hours Bill.

The bill was read a second time.

On the motion that it be committed, Mr. ROEBUCK put a question to Mr. Ferrand- "it is reported of that honourable Member, that he has charged a Minister of the Crown with the use of his power as a Minister to induce an officer em- ployed by the Government—namely, an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner—to make a false report to this House for the purpose of crushing a Member of this House. Now, I think that as this charge has been publicly stated, I am justi- fied in asking the honourable Member for Knaresborough, who is the Minister of the Crown who so used the power of his office; what is the name of the officer of the Government who was employed for that purpose; and who is the Member of the House attempted to be crushed? If it shall turn out that the charge is false, I want to know the value of the authority of that gentleman who could thus employ his powers as a Member of Parliament in propagating inch a falsehood."

Mr. FERRAND complained that Mr. Roebuck had not given him notice of his question ; which he answered thus- " During the period of the discussion of the New Poor-law Bill in this House, it happened that I addressed the House on that measure; and imme- diately after I sat down the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Home Department drew out of the box opposite to him a report, from which he made charges against me as a rate-payer of the Keighley Union, and the other rate- payers of that Union, which I knew were false. That report was obtained from an Asaistant Poor-law Commissioner of the name of Mott. At the time if denied the truth of that report ; and at length a Committee was appointed on my request to inquire into the allegations of that report. Several Magis- trates were examined, many of the Guardians of the Poor, several of the ser- vants of the Union; all of whom declared, that many of the charges they knew to be untrue, and some of them went so far as to say that the report was scan- dalous and false. I am sorry to say that the Committee on that occasion did not do full justice. They declared, indeed, that many parts of that report were overdrawn: but I was not to be put down." With great difficulty he had in- duced the House to grant certain returns, which proved that the report was false. They were laid on the table at the end of the session ; but before the next session commenced, Mr. Mott was dismissed from office, and thereby pre- vented from being brought to the bar of the House. It was the duty of the Government to have stated the reasons of his dismissal.

Mr. ROEBUCK pressed for a categorical answer. Mr. FERRAND said, he was not to be schooled by Mr. Roebuck ; who had used language un- becoming a Member of that House and a gentleman. (" Order, order !") The SPEAKER—" The honourable Member must retract the words last used." Mr. FERRAND acquiesced. The words he uttered on the occasion referred to by Mr. Roebuck were these- " That the right healourable Baronet (Sir James Graham) had taken steps to procure a false report, for the purpose of using it in that House to crush a Member of it."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, he had felt indifferent to the charge until thus deliberately stated in the House : but now the matter could not rest, and he hoped Mr. Ferrand was prepared to take the proper course to substantiate so grave a charge.

Mr. HUME asked Mr. Ferrand if he could offer any explanation of the charge which he was reported to have brought against Mr. Hogg, that, as Chairman of the Nottingham Election Committee, he had vio- lated his oath ?

Mr. FERRAND denied that he had used such expressions.

. Mr. WARD asked, whether Mr. Ferrand had reported Sir Robert Peel to have said, on going into the lobby, that the Christian feeling of the House had defeated the Government ?

Mr. FERRAND—" I never alluded to any thing that fell from the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government."

Mr. WARD—. Then it was Mr. Oastler."

Mr. FERRAND—" Perhaps so ; but I am not Mr. Oastler's keeper. The right honourable Baronet the Home Secretary was his keeper some time since, when he was a prisoner in the Queen's Prison; but now Mr. °ostler is free. I never said any thing about the whole of the House viewing with disgust the conduct of the honourable Member for Beverley. I only spoke of the feeling of my side of it; and I am prepared to stand by what I did say."

Mr. Hoc° hoped that Mr. Ferrand would state what he did say ; and whether the report in the Times was correct.

Mr. FERRAND--" I believe every word used in that report is entirely correct."

Mr. Hoc° solemnly declared that he had acted from no motive but a sense of public duty ; and he called upon Mr. Ferrand to show that he had ground for suspicion, or to stand convicted before the House of foul and false slander and calumny : it would be for Mr. Ferrand to consider, after he was so branded, whether he was fit to sit in that as- sembly, or to communicate with gentlemen.

Mr. FERRAND undertook to come prepared next day with a copy of the Times, and to go over the report word by word.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL pointed out, that the real question was not the correctness of Mr. Hogg's view of election-law, or of Mr. Mott's re- port, but whether Mr. Hogg bad acted from corrupt motives and Sir James Graham had corruptly procured a false report. Mr. Ferrand was bound to make good his allegations ; but he must not think that he could support them merely by showing that he differed in opinion with Mr. Hogg or Sir James Graham.

Sir ROBERT PEEL regretted that certain allusions to himself had been noticed by Mr. Ward ; but as they had been noticed, he must contradict them.

" The statement is, that in the lobby of this House, I said, in reference to the Factories Bill, that Christian feelings or Christian principles had beaten the Government. I never said a syllable of the sort, nor any thing like it, nor any thing that could give apossible foundation for such a statement. It is

i

generally thought that there s some foundation for rumours of this kind, but in this case there is no pretext whatever for such a statement. I said this— that if Government took time, and gave opportunity to honourable Members to consider the consequences of interfering with labour, Government would have a majority."

The bill was ordered to be committed on Friday.

After some other matters had been disposed of on Tuesday, Mr. FERRAND succeeded in "catching the Speaker's eye," and delivered himself as follows-

" I have during this morning minutely examined all the speeches which I made in the manufacturing districts during the Easter recess, and which have been published in the Times newspaper. I have paid particular attention to the leading article in the Times newspaper, in which certain extracts from a =of mine were used, bearing upon the conduct of the right honourable et the Secretary of State for the Home Department and upon that of the honourable and learned Member tor Beverley. It is not my intention to re- tract one syllable I used in that speech, nor to extenuate nor explain away a single sentence. When I made use of that language, I asserted my sacred pre- motive as a free-born Englishman to express my opinions upon the public conduct of two public officers. Sir, I defy this House to deprive me of that privilege. The tipinion I formed of the conduct of those two public officers ill supported by the public press of this country, and is backed by public opinion. But if, in making use of the expressions I used, I have in any way wounded the personal honour of any Member of this House—(Mr. Ferrand was here interrupted by a burst of laughter, principally from Members on the Opposition benches.He proceeded)—The party-spirit and the unmanly hearing which were exhibited towards me last night, and which have burst forth now, con- vince me, and must convince honourable geotlemen—and I am sure my opinion will be backed by that of Englishmen at large—that this House is the last tribunal for them or for me to appeal to." A scene ensued, which is thus described by the Times- " The honourable gentleman, who had been sitting on the second bench on the Ministerial side, here took up his hat, and, walking deliberately down the centre of the House, made his exit by the door under the Strangers' Gallery. A dead silence pervaded the House, which was unusually crowded, until the honourable Member reached the door, when a peal of laughter burst forth. The laughter was subsiding, when it was again renewed in consequence of Sir James Graham rising from his seat, taking his stand by the table, and looking very earnestly towards the door. In this position he stood for nearly a minute, ex- pressing by dumb gestures his astonishment at what had just occurred. His look was full of the richest comedy. The merriment of the House was still further excited when Mr. P. Burt hwick walked up the House, and took his seat in the place Mr. Ferrand had just quitted."

Mr. Borthwick and Mr. Roebuck rose together, amid continued tumult ; but Mr. ROEBUCK succeeded in asking, whether it was fit and becoming that the House should allow the transaction of the previous night to be passed over in that manner?

Mr. BORTHWIcK suggested, that if the discussion wer.: continued, formal notice of motion should be given.

Mr. Hocio claimed the indulgence of the House, especially as he had been their sworn officer in the matter respecting which his conduct was impugned. " I hold in my band the speech delivered by the honourable Member for Knaresborough at a public meetieg, and which Ile last night adopted. I will read that speech shortly to the House. I will impress on them its obvious meaning. I fully admit the right of any honourable gentleman to comment as freely as he pleases on my conduct and my decisions as Chairman of the Committee in question—to say that my deductions from the evidence were wrong, and that the law I acted on was wrung: but if it be the opinion of the House that the honourable gentleman has cast an imputation on me of being influenced by a Minister of the Crown in the exercise of my sacred duty as the Chairman of a Committee appointed by this House—if that be the obvious meaning and purport of the charge of the honourable Member, then I do hope that there is but one course for this House to pursue : I hope that the House will take means of ascertaining that their officer has not been guilty of such infamous conduct ; or that, if they find he has been guilty, they will visit him with merited punishment : but I do hope, if they find that he has not been guilty, they will call upon the man who has stood up in this House and preferred the charge, to substantiate it. If I am asked myself to suggest the course to be pursued, it would be, that if the charge is not substantiated, a re- solution of this House shall declare it false and libellous. I will now read the charge of the honourable Member for Knaresborough. He had been talking of various acts of the right honourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home De- partment: and the newspaper, in introducing the extract from the honourable Member's speech, gave it with these words—' To one of that right honourable gentleman's delinquencies Mr. Ferrand alluded, after his usual plain-spoken fashion, in words which will carry with them the sympathies of all opponents of the Poor-law. After some animadversions on his general conduct with respect to the law, he proceeds—' fhat is not all Sir James Graham has dune of late for the purpose of putting down the advocates of the poor in the House of Commons. You will remember that Mr. Walter Was returned for Notting- ham, and I have had the honour of battling by that gentleman's side the ene- mies of the poor. No man has resisted the Poor-law more vigorously or at greater sacrifice of time and money than Mr. Walter. It was therefore felt necessary by Sir James Graham to get him out of the House of Commons; for Sir James was a man who could not bear to hear the truth spoken, especially on that subject. A petition was presented against Mr. Walter's return. They could only prove that his friends, not his agents, had spent be- tween 30/. and 40/. in money and what they called treating. The Committee was divided—three Whigs for throwing him out, three Tories for keeping him in. Mr. Hogg, the Member for Beverley, one of the most pure boroughs in the kingdom, forsooth—( Loud laughter)—whether he got hie seat for 40/. I do not know, but this Tory Chairman aided Sir James Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter. Mr. Hogg tried to explain away his conduct on that occasion ; the whole of the Government side of the Eloise on which I sat listened with feelings of disgust while he higgled and haggled through his explanation; but there was one man who vociferously cheered, and that one man was Sir Jones Graham.' Now, Sir, is there any human being who can read that article and not be impressed with thi,—that it iil scarcely an implied but a distinct charge against me, of having been influ- enced by the Home Secretary and the Government basely to forego my duty, and to give a verdict for the exclusion from this House of a person who was unacceptable to them ?" Mr. Hogg confined himself to a single point—the imputation of impure and dishonourable motives; remarking, that it was in vain to talk of claiming the respect of the public towards Members of the House if its sworn officers were to be thus insulted. " I do hope that those who are more conversant than I am with the forms of the House will suggest a fit and proper course for the House to pursue. I did not confer with any gentleman below me on the subject, and I do not know whether it would be right for me to adopt the course which the right honourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home De- partment pursued last night with regard to the subject. I might perhaps be safe in adopting the same course; but his long standing in the House, and his high and exalted position, enable him to treat will]. Indifference what I may not think it my duty to pass by. As the sworn officer of the House, too, I have a stronger right to request from them, not protection, but justice, than the right honourable Baronet himself: I ask the House if this imputation ought to be allowed to remain on the honour of a Member of the House dis- charging his duties as its sworn officer? If it ought not, then I call on the House to have the charge substantiated." Other attempts were made to poison the public mind. In a journal of that day it was insinuated, that while the Committee was sitting he was looking out for some office or employment from Government. "Perhaps I ought to apologize to the House for referring to such a subject—there are those who would say that 1 ought to treat a charge of that kind as of no importance: but, perhaps, when the nature of the charge is considered, and the position in which I stood at the time, I need not hesitate to refer to it. Indeed, I feel it to be a humiliation to myself to have to refer to such a charge; bat, as it has been publicly preferred, 1 declare solemnly, on try honour, that neither directly nor indirectly, neither by myself nor through any other channel, from any member of the Government, or any person con- nected with the Government, have I ever asked, or sought, or applied for, or called for, or obtained, or procured, office or emolument for myself or for any human being belonging to me. This insinuation is as base and false as the other. With the exception—which, perhaps, it is absurd for me to mention— of my having sent in an application to the right honourable Baronet for a situation for a person as gauger, or some such office, backed by recommenda- tions from the place I represent, I have never asked for place or emolument from any Government, past or present."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM treated the matter as one concerning the House rather than himself-

" I must remark, with reference to what has fallen from the honourable Member for Beverley, that in this House, we, as members of it, are all equal. I consider that there are no distinctions among us. We are all honourable men, enjoying the highest honour which in a free country any gentleman can possess, that of being chosen by a free people as their representatives in the national representative assembly. I conceive that when the honour of an individual Member is assailed the honour of the House itself is placed in jeopardy. It is not so much the duty of the individual Member to vindicate his honour as it is the duty of the House to ascertain whether the stain cast on him is deserved or not, and whether it affects the honour of the House. If the House is of opinion that the charge against the individual Member is well founded, then it is the duty of the House to expel the Member guilty of dis- honoarable conduct, in order that the honour of the House may remain unsul- lied." He had expected that Mr. Ferrand would put the charge in a sub- stantive shape ; but as he had run away, Sir James left the matter in the hands of the House.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, being repeatedly called for, rose and said-

" The question seems to be, whether you shall treat this subject with in- difference and ridicule, or whether we shall adopt any proceedings with re- spect to it. Should the House contemplate adopting any proceedings, should they think it a case on which proceedings ought to be founded, I should strongly advise the House to allow some interval to elapse, because, unanimous as the feeling of this House appears to be that these charges are utterly without foundation—for, if they could have been supported at all, they would have been, after the declaration made last night—still, in this arena of public free discus- sion, wherein the acts of a public man are proposed to be censured, we cannot enter on any discussion for the vindication of a person accused, or the cen- suring of the accuser, without considering what may be the importance of the precedent which we may establish. Therefore, it is most important that we should look back to any records there may be, in order to ascertain what course the House has taken in any case of an analogous nature. With regard to the circumstances of this evening, I will venture to say, that since the time when a public performer undertook to compress himself into the limits of a quart bottle, there has been no case which has given rise to more disappointment to the au- dience than this." (Laughter.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL suggested the course which he would recom- mend under the circumstances. Mr. Ferrand having fled from the charge .without abandoning it, the passages which were matter of com- plaint might be put in and read ; the House might declare that Mr. Ferrand had acknowledged the correctness of the report, and then pro- nounce the charges to be false and calumnious.

Lord STANLEY concurred with Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Rus- sell; expressing contemptuous indignation at Mr. Ferrand's conduct, and observing, that at the time he made the charges, he had not the slightest ground for believing that they were true.

After a few more remarks, the SPEAKER reminded the House that there was no question before it ; and the matter dropped for the evening.

On Wednesday, acting for Mr. Hogg and himself, Sir JAMES GaA- s:tail formally " complained " of the accusations made by Mr. Ferrand ; and the passages from his Leeds speech alluding to Mr. Hogg, Sir James, and Mr. Mott's report, were read by the Clerk at the table. The passage relating to Mr. Hogg was incorporated in that Member's speech on Tuesday : this is the one about Mr. Motes report-

" I know a little about Sir James Graham ; I have had to battle against him when fighting the cause of the working-classes in this country; and a man who took steps to procure a report which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House of Commons who raised his voice in defence of the suffering poor, would not hesitate to keep the working-classes in the manufacturing districts in a state of degrading slavery. What was his conduct in my own case? I stuck to the man like a leech. I told him the report of Mr. Mott, his Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, was false. I was determined to bring it before the House until justice was done."

The SPEAKER asked if the Member for Knaresborough was in his place? No answer.

Sir ROBERT PEEL tendered his opinion as to the course to be pursued, and reported the recent precedents which he had found to bear upon The case.

" I think the three principal cases are these : the complaint preferred by Lord Maidstone against Mr. O'Connell; the application made to the House by Mr. Sbeil for the vindication of his character against certain charges brought against him in a speech delivered at a public meeting by a Member of this House, Mr. Bill; and the complaint made by the honourable Member for Wallingford, Mr. Blackstone, against a gentleman who had been unseated on the report of a Select Committee—Mr. Poulter, formerly Member for Shaftesbury. Thoseare the precedents which appear to me to have the most immediate bearing upon our proceedings in this case ; but I will not attempt to point out the nice dis- tinctions there may be between those several cases and the present." Acting strictly upon precedent, he would propose to give Mr. Ferrand an opportunity of justifying his conduct. He had not finished his speech on Tuesday, and he might have qualified his statements before coming to a conclusion. Sir Robert would therefore move that the House should take the complaint of Sir James Graham and Mr. Hogg into consideration on Friday. " But I think that while we resolve to take the matter of this complaint into our consideration on Friday next, we ought to accompany that resolution with another—that the Member for Knaresborough shall attend in his place on Friday, for the purpose of then stating, the paragraphs being read to him by the Speaker, whether or not he admits this report to be a correct representation of what be said. We should afford him an opportunity of substantiating the charges he has made. If he admits the accuracy of the report, and states that he is in a condition to prove, and is willing to attempt to prove, the charges therein preferred, my ;lc House is, to give him, most unreservedly, the opportunity of doing so. I will not assume the falsity of those charges. I advise the House, if the honourable Member is willing to undertake the proof, to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of enabling him to substantiate those charges. I will discuss no other contingency than that." Sir Robert moved accordingly.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL entirely concurred in the proposed plan.

Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH objected to establishing a precedent by which a Minister of the Crown, always commanding a majority in that

House, might call upon it to declare that any accusation against him was false and calumnious.

Mr. Tnomes DUNCOMBE objected to the production of a newspaper, as the House had only to deal with Mr. Ferrand ; whose conduct he did not in the slightest degree justify, though he disapproved of the proposed course.

" The honourable-Member for Beverley stated that he had been advised to treat these charges with silent contempt. I conceive that was very sound advice. But then what occurs? Look at the peculiar position in which we are placed. Another honourable Member, unconnected either with the right honourable Baronet or the honourable Member for Beverley. gets up and says to the honourable Member for Knaresborough, ' Pray, Sir, did you say so and so of Mr. So-and-so?' If such a question as that had been put to me I should certainly have replied, 'Pray, what business is that of yours? (Loud laugh- ter, and great cheering.) If either of those honourable Members feels himself aggrieved, I am ready to give him any explanation or satisfaction, either in or Out of this House. (Renewed laughter.) But, if they do not think proper to call upon me, I don't see what right any other honourable Member has to de- mand from me an explanation." (Laughter.) The best course would be, to appoint a Select Committee to consider the subject; and Ile had no doubt that if Mr. Ferrand could not substantiate his charges, he would do every thing in his power to set himself right, not only with the public, but with the gen- tlemen whom he had accused.

Mr. DISRAELI also objected to the proposed course. As a member of the Nottingham Election Committee, he bore testimony to the conscientious spirit which guided Mr. Hogg ; though he entirely differed with him as to the conclusion to which he came. He as strongly disapproved of the spirit which animated Mr. Ferrand towards the important class of master-manufacturers, and was not therefore prejudiced in his favour. But still he thought the course which had been suggested injudicious. " Two courses were open to the honourable Member for Beverley, if he thought him- self aggrieved, and that the charges made against him ought to be noticed. He might have asked some friend—some friend of good sense and good temper, and requisite firmness—to apply to the honourable Member for Knaresborough. (" Hear ! " undo laugh.) Oh, I know some gentlemen think that an appeal of that kind can only lead to Wimbledon Common and pistols ; but I am of opinion that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, or rather in nine hundred-and-ninety-nine cases out of one thousand, such; a result need not be the case. (" Hear ! " and laughter.) I have no doubt that had this case between the honourable Member for Beverley and the honour- able Member for Knaresborough been intrusted in that way to individuals to settle, such would have been the result. I believe that a result might have been come to that would have been satisfactory to the honour of the honour- able Member for Beverley and not degrading to the honourable Member for Knaresborough. But there was also another course : the honourable Member for Beverley might have thrown himself upon the House ; he might have called upon the House to protect him in his official character. But the honourable Member did neither ; he made neither a public nor a private appeal; but an- other honourable gentleman, who assumes to himself the position of public accuser in the House — (Laughter, " Hear ! " from Mr. Roebuck) — and he did FO without giving any notice of his intention to moot the sub- ject—without affording that golden bridge which the social spirit always allows to any man who may have given utterance to an intemperate or an indiscreet expression—without giving an opportunity to the parties to arrive at a gentlemanly result." (Laughter.) They were, in fact, approaching a ground of no common seriousness—the question, what are to be the limits allowed to public discussion ? " Is it to be under- stood clearly, that no charge is to be made against an radividual but the House of Commons is to step forward to convert themselves into a court of honour, and to call on the accuser to prove the truth of the charge so made? I think there is already sufficient power to keep speakers in order, in that re- sponsibility which attaches to every man. I have heard many charges made in this House of a very grave character—grayer than any that have been made by the honourable Member for Knareaborough. I beard a charge made last session by an honourable gentleman occupying a very different position from that of the honourable Member for Kuaresborough—by a man of high station in this House. Did not the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Go- vernment himself rise in this House and charge an honourable Member oppo- site with making speeches for the purpose of stimulating men to assassina- tion? I should like to know who in that case moved the House against the right honourable gentleman ? Yet the right honourable gentleman when he made that declaration must have been perfectly aware that it was one which could not be substantiated by proof. You did not attempt to cow him —you did not hoot the right honourable gentleman on that occasion as you did the honourable Member for Knaresborough; but you quailed under the accusation which he could not prove, and which you repudiated, in a way which I think reflected very little credit on your spirit. But the honourable Member for Knaresborough comes before you obnoxious to many on account of the cause he advocates; he comes forward unsupported by a great and powerful party, and then an opportunity is taken of getting up a cry against him. He is baited and bullied. (" Oh ") Yes, I say he was bullied—gentleman gets up after gentleman, all to assail one man ; and he is treated in a way not usual, as I believe, in this House. I say, if the common courtesy of society had been exercised towards him, he would have had an opportunity of extricating him- self from the position—a very painful one, I admit—in which he was placed; an opportunity which is uniformly granted to every Member of this House." He did not understand Mr. Ferrand to have fled from the charge, but only to have demurred to the tribunal before which he was cited: and it was for the House to consider, whether they were to establish a dangerous precedent in constituting themselves a court of honour, taking up all questions of contro- versy that might arise between Members. In Mr. Hogg's case there was a clear course: in Sir James Graham's the quarrel was quite different. "I have heard the honourable Member for Knaresborough on several occasions enter into a detail of the circumstances connected with the great Mott case ; and I have heard the right honourable gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department answer the honourable Member for Knaresborough ; and I have also heard the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Administration discourse on this subject. I have heard them all ; and I honestly and frankly declare that I never could annex a definite idea to any single circumstance that transpired in that most compli- cated transaction. Something in it there certainly was; the case was not alto- gether in nubibus—there was a case, there was a Sub-Commissioner, a report that was quoted and not printed, a Commissioner that was quoted and dis- missed. That there was altogether a considerable degree of suspicion involved in the circumstances of the case no one can deny. But, because there was this suspicion, did any one suppose that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his exalted position, would pervert his power for so slight an object ? There is no &gnus nodus for such an interference; and yet a Member of Parliament of warm feelings and of a decided character, not supported by any great party in the House, involved in a personal discussion with a Minister of the Crown, and who thinks he has been unjustly treated, who believes there has been an attempt to put him down, or, as it is usually. termed, crushed, might take an extreme and exaggerated view of his position, and suppose himself -engaged in a contest with a powerful Government. What more natural ? It excites the fancy—it appeals to our vanity. It is indeed the most natural thing in the world. But yet, that because the honourable Member for Knareabormigh, when addressina' large bodies of the operative dames of the community, with whom I think he has great influence—because he states ' that he will stick like a leech to the Home Secretary that the Rome Secretary has got up a report which was never printed, but which be brought out of his red box on the green table to meet the honourable Member with that, confident in the energies and feelings of the people, he defied the Minister and all his made-up reports, and that he should not crush him '— Good God, Sir, have we come to this, that because a mere Member of Parlia- ment says such things as these' men like the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State are to come forward with that demure countenance which he can put on, and say the State is in danger—that something is rotten in the state of Denmark—that the House of Commons must interfere to vindicate the reputation of this, I believe still strong, though not popular Ministry ? (Roars of laughter.) I think this subject was treated in a great measure in the right way by one who last night spoke upon it. I think the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Administration treated this subject in the right way, when, with that historical research and that unrivalled memory for which he is famed, he referred to the case of the bottle-conjuror."

Lord Stanley had charged Mr. Ferrand with making statements at the time knowing them to be false: that was the model set to Mr. Ferrand ! " He will probably follow the noble Lord's example, and we shall find the speeches of the honourable Member for Knaresborough hereafter distinguished for all that amenity of manner and that choice selection of conciliatory phrase which have hitherto distinguished the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Lanca- shire. The noble Lord declares the honourable Member for Rnaresborough is an intentional calumniator. I should like to know how the noble Lord can prove that ? flow will he substantiate that asQertion ? Better than the ho- nourable Member for Knarcsborough has substantiated his? "

After the three rehearsals, would the piece succeed any better on Friday than it had yet done ? " I cannot take on myself to decide; but this I do know, that no attempt by this House, whether right or wrong in the beginning, from the time of Sacheverell to our friend Mr. Stockdale, to run down an individual, has ever succeeded, or has ever terminated to their advantage or the increase of their favour in public opinion. Remember what another Sir Robert—not a greater man than our Sir Robert, but still a most distinguished one—said with respect to the case of Dr. Sacheverell. He said ' he had had enough of roust- ing a parson '; and I must say, having differed with the right honourable gen- tleman on subjects analogous to the present, that, after the experience he has had of the assertion of Parliamentary privilege—although he was assisted on those occasions by the noble Lord the Member for London, who, I observe, has rather withdrawn his support of late from her Majesty's Government,—I think the right honourable gentleman, taking as he did the great historical view of the case, the bottle-conjuror' view of the case, might really, after what has oc- curred, allow the matter to drop." (Mr. Disraeli sat down amid much cheering.) Lord JOHN MANNERS put his objection in the practical shape of an amendment.

If Mr. Hogg felt aggrieved, two courses were open to him—that suggested by Mr. Disraeli, or to go to law. He protested against any reference to the com- ments of the journal in order to put a construction upon the speech. " I call upon the House to come to a decision on the literal worda of the extract which has been read from the speech. Let honourable Members look at those words. ihaire not only, listened to them, but I have read them with deliberation and attention half.a.dozen times, and I defy any man to assert that any imputation upon the honour and character of the honourable and learned Member for Beverley can be extracted from them. Those words contain statements of facts, not imputations. I have myself marked the unpleasant altercations which have taken place in this House between the right honourable the Home Secretary and the late Member for Nottingham (Mr. Walter); and 1 have no hesitation in saying, from what I have noticed, that the right honourable Baronet was very glad that Mr. Walter was unseated. That, therefore, is one fact ; and the honourable and learned Member for Beverley was the Chairman of the Committee which turned out Mr. Walter. These are two facts-1 think two strong facts, from which to draw a conclusion. I draw none myself, but it IS competent for any man to draw from those facts an inference ; and I say the honourable Member for Knaresborough has not even drawn an inference of his own from them." With respect to the charge against Sir James Graham, Sir James himself wished the matter to remain where it was. As an amendment, Lord John Manners moved "the previous question."

Mr. SMYTHE seconded the amendment.

lie entertained no sympathy with the political opinions expressed by Mr. Ferrand, especially on the factory question. Ile thought him in earnest; but his hallucinations respecting Sir James Graham were only to be matched by his hallucinations with regard to machinery. He was to be called upon to sub- stantiate his charges ; but those charges involved a question of motive, and of Mr. Ferrand's belief, not of facts; and all the facts were already before the House. "What is the fact in respect to the honourable Member tor Knares- borough, whom, I cannot help thinking, we have been bullying a little when we called upon him to prove his belief in the matter? What honourable Member will take upon himself to prove any one of his beliefs? (Laughter.) There is in this House a prevalent belief in the right honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth : will any gentleman prove his belief? The honour- able Member for Finsbury, I have heard, believes in the six points of the Charter : will he come forward and undertake to prove his belief?" Mr. THOMAS DUNCOSIBE—" Yes, I will." Mr. SMYTHE—. It will, indeed, be a curious exposition. For myself, I must say, that if I were asked for proofs as to matters of my belief, I should have very great difficulty in finding them. Now, for instance, I cannot help thinking that we owe the whole of the mischief which at present surrounds Us to the honourable and learned Member for Bath : I believe that there has been something a little like an understanding between purity and power. if, however, I am called upon to justify this belief, I can only say I believe it from an intimate observation and study of the honourable and learned gentle- man's political career. 1 am not to be deceived by the mock severities of spu- rious patriotism: that assentation which masks itself beneath the guise of c) ni- eism, assailing all men, but sparing one man—aspersing all men, but fawuiug upon one man—continually inferring, that were one not the Diogenes of Bath, one would wish to be the Alexander of Tamworth—( Great cheering, and laugh- ter) —that, Sir, is the surest of flatteries." Mr. ROEBUCK, the next speaker, began by saying that he would dis- appoint the House, for he would speak to the question : but he soon lett that, to consider the manner in which the charge respecting Sir James Graham was brought before the House. It had been complained that he had not given notice of his question to Mr. Ferrand, and it was said that all the mischief was owing to the Member for Bath. Now, if he charged Mr. Smythe with robbery, he would nut complain that he had had no notice, but he would instantly deny the imputation : Mr. Ferrand did complain of the want of notice, but admitted that he had made the charge. " I had no part whatever in that which followed. All that re- lated to the honourable and learned Member for Beverley came out on a ques- tion put by my honourable friend the Member for Montrose, and subsequently followed up by the pressing speech of my honourable friend the Memb.tr for Sheffield. Now, I want to know if I am to stand before the House as • per- son called upon to make my defence. Accusations have been made against me, but they are worth nothing ; they must come from a more formidable quarter before I will give any answer to them. Is the House willing that this matter should be hushed up ? does it desire that the question should he got rid. of by the somewhat cowardly expedient of • the previous question '? ' To give Mr. Ferrand an opportunity of substantiating his charge, was not " bully- ing " nor " baiting," nor " running down." lie did not seek to make the House arbiter in private quarrels ; but was this a private quarrel ? " Sir, when the honourable Member speaks of being rewarded by one's enemies, may I ask, has he forgot what it is to be disappointed by one's friends ? Disappointment may have poisoned the arrows shot against friends ; it cannot have poisoned. those shot against enemies. I have denied these honourable Members nothing: why are they enraged with me ? (Cries of " Hear, hear!" especially from Lord John Manners.) Sir, I am glad the noble Lord cheers, because by doing so he has called himself up to my recollection. I believe the noble Lord gives way to rather peculiarly sanctified views in matters of religion —(Cries of "Oh, oh I ")—that be bell very peculiar notions on matters of high account. Now, I want to know how he reconciles to these notions—and I ask the ques- tion of the honourable Member for Shrewsbury also—that suggestion which he and the other honourable Member have made, and which the honourable Member for Shrewsbury calls a gentlemanly arrangement '? " (" Hear I " and a laugh.) He must vote with Sir Robert Peel. Mr. SMYTHE denied that he had ever voted or acted under disap- pointment.

Lord Ho WICK counselled the House to follow the advice of Lord John Manners.

That the attacks on Mr. Hogg and Sir James Graham were altogether groundless. was the opinion of every man whose opinion was worth considering; but did it follow, that because tire attacks were unfounded in fact, and never ought to have been made, that the House were acting judiciously in pressing the mat- ter further? Did he wish for impunity to this sort of accusations ? He wished. for no such thing : he was prepared to leave them to the well.deserved punish- ment which fell on those who made statements without being prepared to sup- port them—he meant their personal responsibility in the contempt of all rea- sonable and honest MOIL The man who made a charge which he could not substantiate stood degraded in the eyes of the House and of the country.

Mr. RUNE would defer the matter till Friday, in the hope that Mr. Ferrand would frankly come forward and say that the words which he had used had been spoken in heat, and that he would offer such expla- nation as would remove all unpleasant impression from the minds a all the parties concerned.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not intend to vote; but he sought to remove some misapprehension respecting what be had said. " The proposition for which I contended is this—that when a Member of the House of Commons in the disch age of his duty has been accuiediy an- other of dishonest and dishonourable conduct, and when the accuser qliberately perseveres in repeating that charge, it then becomes the imperative duty of the House, in vindication of its own honour, to investigate the accusation upon the one hand and to hear the defence on the other. He never objected to free discussion respecting the conduct of public men. The charge against Mr. Hogg clearly could not be passed over. " At the same time, I am bound in candour to acknowledge, that in the course of a political life DOW of some duration, I have said and done so many things which, upon calm reflection, I should rather had not been said or done, that I do think that some opportunity ought to he given to gentlemen to explain any thing which may have fallen from them inconsiderately, and which they may be willing to retract without doing any thiog inconsistent with their honour. To the Member for Knaves- borough that opportunity remains eith perfect honour. If he seps that be regrets what is passed, and that on the whole the charges were so put by Limas that he could not sustain them—if he expresses regret for having wounded our feelings without intending to do so—and if be says that he is sorry for what has occurred, then I do hope that the House will pass the matter over; and I am sure I shall banish it altogether from my recollection for ever. Now, with the permission of the House, I shall beg leave to retire." (Sir James withdrew, much cheered as he left the House.) Mr. boon declared that he would be as ready to forget as Sir James Graham. (And he also witlulrew.) At the suggestion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who said that the amend- ment could be renewed on Friday, Lord Jomi MANNERS did not press his motion; and the original motion was affirmed.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION. On Tuesday, Mr. BORTHWICK moved, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Ma- jesty will be graciously pleased to afford to Parliament, in all matters ecclesias- tical, the advice and assistance of the clergy in convocation assembled, accord- ing to the constitution and ancient usage of the realm." He was proceeding to expound his views in a speech, when the House was "counted out," at seven o'clock.

REFORM OF THE REFORM BILL. On Wednesday, Mr. THOMAS DUN. COMBE gave notice, that on Thursday the 9th May, he would move for a Select Committee to inquire whether in any and which of the boroughs having a right under the 2d William IV. c. 45, commonly called "The Reform Act," to send a Member or Members to the Commons House of Parliament, such Member or Members have been, or are, directly or indirectly, nominated by or returned through the influence of Peers or others.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES. On Tuesday, Dr. Bowanzo asked, if Sir Robert Peel was aware that a treaty had been signed between the representatives of the German Commercial Union and the Minister of the United States, which was founded on the principle of preferential duties between those two countries? Sir ROBERT PEEL answered, that Dr. Bowring had correctly described the treaty ; though be protested against the introduction of the new word "pre- ferential." The treaty, however, had not been ratified. In reply to Mr. LA.. BOUCIIERE, Sir ROBERT PEEL added, that existing treaties oblige the United States to admit British goods on the same terms as those for " the most fa- voured nation "; a point which had not escaped the attention of Ministers.

THE QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY. Neither House Sat OR Thursday ; the Lords adjourning from Tuesday to Friday, the Commons from Wednesday to Friday.