The Sun. — London, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

..~" mice, wa° the 03 ° 9i an incl' gyring the thus re ' "-- . at th! t b° rete r so fier : otbl i t ld tl4; trPllo') IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. -~- HOUSE OF LORDS, April 22. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool 4ek at Five o'Clock. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. L ord DACRE presented seven petitions in favour , the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, but the designations c,f kle petitioners were not heard in the gallery. „ The Duke o f WELLINGTON pr e sented a peti 'lon to the same effect from a place in Lancashire. Lord BR OUGHAM presented a s i m il ar pet i t i on fro m a congregation in Belfast. ...MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mfr; GR EENE an d o th ers f rom th e C om mons brought tua Hartlepool Harbour and Dock Bill, the Yar kolith and Norwich Railway Act Amendment Bill, tl4 -North British Railway Bill, the Brandon and Nor -70, and other Bills. Lord PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES. 4 , 44 ° 111 BROUGHAM presented a great number of t' a . '"ona from congregations of Presbyterians in ° f Ireland, Trim, Down, and other parts of the north J,eland, in f avou r of Presbyterian marriages. .The Noble and Learned Lord presented also a petition "Ca the National Association for the Political and Improvement of the People, complaining that iv.7llad not been able to obtain a cert.ficate, which h :Eld exempt th e m from paying taxes for their pre ti7; also a p e titi on f rom the Mayor and Corpora ., of N o tti ng h am ( as we un d ers t oo d), praying for " al teration and amendment of the Bankruptcy laws. DLord presented a petition from the 14denting congregation of a place in the north of bpd, expressing surprise and alarm at the nature 4 Orobabl e resu lt s o f th e Bill brought in by the L., ) ° . e Lord on the Woolsack, entitled the Dissenters' itTh Bill, and praying their Lordships not to allow p et; '?.. pass. The Noble Lord presented another hop from the ministers and presbytery of a con ion i n Y or k s hire, expressive of their approba kite the p rov i s ions of the Bill, and hoping that it tbe allowed to pass into a law (Laughter.) 4,2 1 CAMPBELL presented several petitions V the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. COT a few words from Lord Brougham, the Lord 0 4 7 4 110 r, and Lord Cottenham, the Debtors and po f : t cle Bill, which stood for a second reading, was L ord ad till Monday next. tile NORMANDY presented a petition from the 'Aber oft, B of a Presbyterian congregation in the north rea rr le nd, praying for an alteration in the existing age laws. Tt. GWALIOR. 4 - " e Marquis of NORMANBY said that, on Fri - F4,"ening last he had given notice of his intention k r °n this evening, a question to his Noble Vds the President of the Board of Control (the th a af Ripon), respecting the omission of papers had been moved for on the subject of the ant occurrences at Gwalior. But he had commu ted with his Noble Friend this morning, who rattled him that he could not come down t o th e 11 se this evening, and, of course, he (Lord N o r- Ob,Y) would not carry out his notice. Nor, in- Fl Was it necessary that he should, a s hi s N o ble th rl encl had told him that the paper omitted from 4: returns—which was the order of the the l'ernor-G enera l of the 14th of August, relating to tu , r °rrnation of the army of the Jumna—should be tll l ' a ied; and as to the arrangement with the Maha 41,,..th_ere was no writing on the subject in the hands 4 , 1 " Government at home; nor was there, probably, 1 writing on the subject, as the arrangement eq s e 9ily a modification of that which had been rea into in 1820. For these reasons it would not 04eeessary to put the question, but there was an r question connected with these subjects, which hed to put, but he would reserve his notice 11. h is Noble F r i en d w as in the House. th;"erouke of BUCCLEUCH then laid on the table, ItaPer alluded to. Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented na against the Dissenters' Chapels' Bill. a Earl of ZETLAND presented some petitions 4 4 Your of the Bill ; also a petition from schoolmas for 111 the Hi g hl an d s ( as we understood) praying assistance. ht,l l , 3 irmingham Canal Bill, and some other pri- Th were read a third time and passed. air Lordships then adjourned The HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 22. SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. - NEW MEMBER. IZ ir • 1 3aisco took the oaths and his, seat for the f h li g ll of Hastings. teti -e Yarmouth and Norwich Railway Bill was 4 a third time and passed. qlaL bENNISTOUN presented a petition from a ev, one from the Lord Provost and Magistrates the "Dendance, for an alteration of the provisions of aga inst ' 4500 5' Bill—from the licensed pawnbrokers th e lls t the Charitable Pawn Societies Bill; and from igrilllerellants and shipowners with upwards of 850 ka:lires for a reduction of the duties on sugar and tea. C 'REENE brought up the report of the Com- IN - 6„ 11 1 3 on the Thetford Inclosure and Drainage Bill. the Order of the Day for the third reading of e e 'rthern B r iti s h R a il wa y Bill b e i ng put, Yst e olori el WYNDHAM said he was opposed to the tre t ,, r i r l l of free-trade in railways, which tended to , 4 1 3 0 n the rights of either the poor man or the r.,, 41 e should, consequently, move that the Bill . I\l;',a third time that day six months. N l „ t- % )3 O4THWICK agreed with his Hon. and 4 re tle '" Friend that this Bill would be a direct inter- With the rights of property, and he should .41.0 1 tlitly s u pp or t th e a m endment. r tlitt k ; 41 ACAULAY said, the opinion of the Com -444,6,Pad, after mature "consideration, been pro tnhe la favour of this line of railway. He denied Nti:itelnents of the Honourable and Gallant ere la , r4 ,an opposite, that this Bill would inter ,„duly with the rights of private property. maerY marshes which Mr. Millar himself pos g d l e ea g i ,e forth a stench which was intolerable.— e ' sear, and a laugh.) He did not think that i sq‘th -81 ° 1 '1 of a Committee, which had heard and tlih unaL n ?( l all the evidence, should be rescinded by a tdenc which had no opportunity of hearing any ••11 r. -4,JCKHART said that he was not very thereacquainted with the locality, but he had been 416(2,4101'P tha n once , an d h e h a d never perceived any 4 fo e llB °Buvia from the marshes; nor had he ever h e ard that th ere was an y. . House then divided, when the numbers were — F or the thi r d rea di ng Against it.. • • Th e 1) ,„ Majority —79 b Th e 'J D "' Was then read a third time and passed. ''Xte rir . " 4B tern Counties (Brandon and Peterborough Pass e r/ 1 Railway) Bill was read a third time and r r „ SUGAR DUTIES. '44IveIL'iIORNELY presented a petition . from o _ thceool signed by 30,000 persons, complaining of tiotiexeessive differential duties on sugar. The pe nt i r eol:hrts,stated that the produce of sugar fr . orli Possessions had been for some time dimini!h ktg a ItT ld that at the same time the price of foreign e last had been constantly declining. During Rioh 4 4 jear 114 British vessels had sailed from _ and out of this number only twenty-one had • har k , ile- r °,, r r England, all the rest being bound to Ham thafiltl 'he petitioners therefore confidentially alleged Wer e e differential duties on sugar had been,. and exceedingly injurious in their operation, and t r i lt i c , e d that they might be abolished altogether. TERS AND SERVANTS BILL. . the T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against al Ao asters and Servants Bill. The Hon. Member . trietPrese ra ted a ; petition from the manufacturing dis- Ac t i e s s 41 favour of the ten hours' clause of the Fac tor „ B ill; also a p e ti t i on f rom S un d er l an d pray i ng "ue liberati on o f Cooper, and in favour of the • der Air, *, to t , COLLETT presented a petition from the bo tskL °f Athlone, praying f or a Bill t o l ega li se mixed C a ges in Ireland. th e °.lonel VERNON presented four petitions with tptilae pr_ayer. 130 WRING presented a petition from Bolton l ii'st the Masters and Servants Bill. t tler: l , ll . DOUGLAS presented a petition from the it_,'"ants and shipowners tea iverpool, praying for Ruction on the duties on at tt i:;',R , YORKE presented a petition from York, -4 the Masters and Servants Bill. NOTICES OF MOTION. n OWRING gave notice that to-morrow, Gl B4 i ° , l ild inquire of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. trea t s : 3 °, e) Whether he had any official notice •f a had the kgned between the United States of America .11 4 i States that comprise the German and Prussian, d ac e ° , t ;' b Y which goods were to be reciprocally intro th,a ,hito each country at duties much lower than lOtn e lev ied upon articles of the same kind introduced ivgither country from Great Britain ? Ntrf• DUNCOMBE moved that the petition of Pltti 4 . es ?rice an d William White Thompson, corn of 11 PR of th e ill egal conduct of certain magistrates Aonavvick, wh en summone d b efore them f or t h e 141 4 4 a Yroent o f church-rates on the 15th inst., be (1, with the Votes.--Agreed to. 11 / NP'W HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. iI tIME begged to ask the Noble Lord at the .objeelforith‘e \yowl s and Forests whether he had any Italy Lo lay on the table of the House a copy of tht ~,eorrespondence that had taken place between 110":°Irtinissioners of Woods and Forests and Mr. %;tthe architect of the new Houses of Parlia aelative to the sum which had been fixed upon li ou zi s : to be paid to Mr. Barry for the building of the Th e s. , Earl of LINCOLN would have no hesitation )30'1:Luting the correspondence if any such existed, trdne Was not aware that there was any such cor ence. pubile'• 'WILLIAMS moved for an account of the income and expenditure of the United King- THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 23, 1844. Mr. HUME wished to know whether any arrange ment had been cot 'bas to when the discussion on this Bill was to take !We ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said no arrangement whatever had been made beyond what the Hon. Member must be aware was stated by the Noble Lord (Ashley) would be the course to be adopted. There was only one clause of the Bill which at all interfered with the period of labour; and it would be for the Hon. Member for Montrose to consider whether it would be more expedient to take the discussion on it on going into Committee, or to raise it now. But he (Sir J. Graham) should hope that as this measure had been before the House some time, not only in this session but in former ones, and that division after division had been taken upon it—he should hope that on the whole, it would not be opposed now, but that the discussion would be taken on going into Committee, either on the amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, or the resolution of the Hon. Member for Bath. He would give notice that, on Friday next, he would take the order for going into Committee as the first order of the day.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME said it would be convenient to the House if there was only one discussion, and he would not throw any obstacle in the way of the second reading, on the understanding that the notice just given by the Right Hon. Gentleman would he ad hered to. Mr. WARD apprehended that another discussion would take place on the motion of which he had given notice, that the clause should be omitted altogether. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath to take the dis - cussion on a resolution of the whole House, before going into Committee, was a proper and convenient course, as it would give more solemnity to the matter in debate to take the question before the House went into Committee, and while the Speaker was in the chair. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet op posite to say that this Bill was in conformity with the Bilis introduced on the same subject in former years. By the clauses in the Bill of last year female labour was restricted up to the age of twenty-one, but by the Bill now introduced there was an en tirely new proposal. Sir J. GRAHAM said he had alluded to the pre ceding Acts on this subject, but the Noble Lord was mistaken in supposing he alluded to that which the Noble Lord had referred to, namely, the restriction of female labour. Mr. BERNAL said it appeared to him that there was no difference, except in words, between moving a negative resolution, and moving an instruction to the Committee. He believed that the discussion wished for could not be taken on the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. He believed the intention of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was to move a general, solemn resolution that such a thing should not be done. He never recollected that any step on any occa sion intervened between going into Committee, unless it was a resolution in the shape of an instruction to the Committee. He thought it better to state this now as it would prevent any supposition that they wished to obstruct the intentions of' his Hon. Friend. Mr. ROEBUCK thought it was competent for him to make his motion, either on- the motion for reading the Order of the Day, or for the Speaker leaving the chair, and that he could not be prevented from doine. so. He might be unwise in doing so, but that he had a right to move anything restricting the Factories Bill on the- motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair, was as well settled as anything possibly could be. If he chose he might even go further, but he was satisfied with the mode he had taken to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, the only effect of which would be that the consideration of the subject in Committee would be put off one day. Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was his intention to move for a Select Committee up stairs, but 'he be lieved when the Order of the Day for the House re solving itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Factories Bill was put, then must be the proper time for him to move that it be referred to a Committee up stairs. The Committee would be confined to the question of wages, because (there was no use in the House deceiving itself on the subject) there was a strong impression amongst the operatives that the restriction of labour to ten hours would not reduce wages. He kneW that they said, and that others in their behalf also said, that they pre ferred taking their chance of a lieduction of wages; but then they always said that a reduction of wages would not be the consequence.—(Hear, hear.) The opposition of the Government to the Noble Lord's proposition was founded upon the argument that it would be injurious to the working classes, in consequence of the reduction of wages that would ne cessarily ensue from it. On a consultation with the Short- time Committee lately, he (Mr. Duncombe) told them that he believed that a different impres sion from that which they entertained prevailed in the House of Commons. They complained of the ignorance of the House of Commons on this ques tion and, as practical men, be_(,Mr. Duncombe) pro pOsed to them to go to a Committee of the House of Commons, and explain their grievances on the mat ter there, and, with regard to this particular point, meet the argument of the master manufacturers, that this limitation would reduce the amount of wages. They complained, and he thought justly, that the House attended more to the statements of mai ters and millowners, than to the feelings and representations of the operatives. He (Mr. Dun combe) believed it would be satisfactory to a great portion of the working classes, and he thought it was also due to the public, that some further investigation should take place on this subject. He did not belie4e that which he was told would be the case if this Bill were referred to a Committee up stairs, that it would be hung up for the remainder of the session. He thought it better that it should be hung He for the remainder of the present session tha i n that it should be passed in the shape to which Minis ters had at present reduced it. That it would pais in that shape there could not be the slightest doubt. It was a perfect delusion to suppose that the mo tion of the Noble Member for Dorsetshire could by any possibility be carried, or that it would be acceded to by the Houie. The only chance the Noble Lord had of carrying his point was by fighting step by step in every stage in the progress of the Bill through the House for the principle which the House hatl already agreed to. The Noble Lord gave up an opportunity of introducing a clause Committee, and he had given notice of his proposition for the third reading. The Noble Lord might have introduced the clause in Committee, and he might also have introduced it on the report, but he let those opportunities go by, and deferred it to the time when the Speaker was going to put the question from the chair, that the Bill do pass. Then it wa that the Noble Lord's clause was to be brought up, and the Right Hon. Baronet and the Government would then properly say to the Noble Lord and to the House, that the clause which he proposed mili tated so against the whole principle of the Bill, and the provisions which had been already agreed to, that it would be totally impossible for the House now t 6 accede to it. There would be perfect good sense in that. It was perfectly proper on the part of the Go vernment so to do if they allowed, as the Noble Lord was about to do, the Bill to slip through the House =until it was about being passed. Then the Noble Lord would, as it were, take a flying shot at the Bill. But, as it was to pass, and when he went to discharge his second barrel at it, he would find that the game was gone.--e, (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That would be the, result of all the discussion that had takenl place, and of the decision which the House had come to, that women and children should not' work for more than ten hours.—(Hear, hear.) The operatives thought that the Noble Lord (Ashley) and the House had been trifling with their interests that the whole thing was a delusion from beginning to end. The only course now was for the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) to agree' to a Committee. Let the masters and the men' meet before an impartial Committee, and let the public be thus satisfied who was in the right, and who in the wrong. Only by these means could they dis-' abuse the public mind of the impression which prevailed that they were totally ignorant of the interests of those for whom they were legislating. Lord ASHLEY said it had not been his intention to make a single remark, but the observations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) in duced him to read to the House three lines of a letter received by him (Lord Ashley) that morning. The Hon. Gentleman said the operatives considered that he (Lord Ashley) had deluded them—that his con duct was, in fact, tantamount to a surrender. Now he (Lord Ashley) believed that the operatives of England were quite as fit judges of what was for their own good as the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury—(Hear, hear)—and he also thought they had amongst them ten times more justice and ten times more candour than he could pride himself upon.—(Cheers and laughter.) The letter, from which he was going to quote, was written by autho rity of the Central Short Time Committee of Lan cashire, and it said thus—" We are all of opinion that the course you have adopted is the best that under the circumstances you could have taken. We shall give you all the support that lies in our power." Mr. AGLIONBY said he hoped the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) would not take any course that would interfere with the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley). He had ever seen that Hon. Member (Mr. Duncombe) foremost to protect the privileges of the working classes, but he would not show himself the zealous friend he had been to them, if he took any proceeding upon the subject before the House without the sanc tion of that Noble Lord (Ashley). The sincerity o f th e N o bl e Lord. was great, and his judgme n t was as grea t as his sincerity. He placed i m pli c i t faithhis judgment tdi i i nt m he en Noble a o n b d le s L in o c rd er , ity an . d- Here lied believed that the N o bl e L or d' s course was a pp ro ved entirely up on of by the working classes.—(Ch e i rs .) Many of those who had cheered the Hon. Member for Finsbury were directly opposed to the motion, and might, perhaps, be induced to urge him to go on, in hopes of defeat ing the measure.—(Hear, hear.) They had heard of delusions in the minds of the working classes on this subject, and that wages must inevitably fall in cc.nse quence of this measure. He believed that the greater nnmber of the working classes were as able to judge of this question as any of the Members of that House. They had the greatest interest in it, and it was too much for Members who had no acquaintance with the practical details to presume to theorise as they did. He believed that too much attention was paid to the master mill-owners and to political economi,tc He acknowledged that the question was one of great difficulty, but he believed that the intelligent members of the working classes had well considered the question and were perfectly competent to decide it. He should certainly support the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) Mr. STUART WORTLEY complained that the House should be called upon to discuss these motions on the second reading of the Bill. The Honourable Member for Bath bad given notice of a motion on going into Commit tee, and the Honourable Member for Finsbury had also given notice of his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Honourable _ Member for Sheffield had also given notice of his intention to propose an amend ment on the discussion of one of the clauses. Now, it struck him that it would be exceedingly in: convenient to have all these motions discussed at once; and he wished to ask the Speaker which mo tion would have precedence—that of the Hon. Member for Bath, or that of the Hon. Member for Finsbury ? The SPEAKER said that, according to the rules of the House, after the order of the day had been read, the Hon. Member for Finsbury might move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and when that motion was disposed of, it was competent to any Hon. Member to move a resolution, provided it was relevant to the question. Mr. STANSFIELD (who was almost inaudible, owing to the noise and confusion in the House) was understood to say, that he had several alterations and amendments to propose in this Bill when before the Committee, and which would affect several other branches of manufactures as well as the woollen trade. Mr. ROSS said there was so much exaggeration and so many misstatements upon this subject, that he had thought it his duty to appeal to those who had the best means of coming to a true conclusion on the matter, so he appealed to several of his constituents in the town of Belfast, and in consequence he had been induced to a certain degree to alter his opinions. Petitions, numerously signed by working-men and young persons about the age of 15, had been presented to the House, praying it not to interfere with labour. The petitions, taking a different view from that of his Honourable Friend, asserted that the inevitable consequence of reducing the hours of work would be the reduction of wages. . Seeing, therefore, the opinion of the manufacturing employers, backed by that of the working men, he had determined to change his course. Although his conduct might:ap pear inconsistent, he thought the best consistency was that of always endeavouring to act according to what he believed the rights of any particular case. Mr. HINDLEY thought the best argument in favour of the course suggested by the Honourable Member for Finsbury was the speech of the Honourable Member for Belfast. This change of opinion showed the necessity .of probing this whole question to the bottom. When the doc trines of political economy were understood, they would be found in favour of humanity. The Right Hon. Gentleman reproached a majority of the House with being a tyrant majority. But the conduct of the Government was such as to deserve the reproach of a tyrant minority.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, he never saw a Government act in so perverse and ungracious a manner„—(Hear, hear.) Mr. M. PHILIPS was astonished at the course now taken by the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, and who had, in former times, voided all the pro visions of the Factories Act. But he might not be as tonished at what had fallen from the Hon. Mem ber for Ashton-under-Lyne.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He would leave it to the Hon. Gentleman to recon cile his own former acts with the opinions which he now expressed.—(Hear). He (Mr. Philips) would take the judgment of the Hon. Member for• Belfast, in preference to the statement of the Hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Hon. Member for Belfast had been influenced on a former occasion by the exaggerations which had prevailed in the House upon this subject, and he voted in favour of the Noble Lord (Ashley). But then the Hon. Gentleman inquired into the matter in a judicious manner, deriving his information from practical persons, both men and masters, and he now came forward manfully to declare that he was wrong in his former vote.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. P.) had always been opposed to interference with the labour of adults. He believed, that if they once commenced a series of experimental operations on labour, where would they stop ?—(Hear, hear.) They would next have to regulate wages—(Hear)— and did they think that they could confine their in terference to the walls of the factories ? They could not. They must push their experiments into every department of labour, and inevitably drive the trade out of the country.—(Hear.) Did they hope that they could interfere also with the labour of other countries ? Let the Hon. Member for Ashton-under- Lyne go upon the Continent, in the vacation, and try his influence with the natives there.—(Hear, and a laugh.) '1 he Hon. Gentleman would be of course an unpaid commissioner, but no doubt, he would also be a zealous one.—(A laugh.) But he would find that he could not induce the people on the Continent to tie their hands before or behind.—(Hear, hear.) The result of the commission would be just nothing. But, in fact, upon this question, there was a system of delusion practised on the people.—(Hear, hear.) He apologised to the House for detaining it so long, This was the only reference which he wished to make to the Bill itself. He had always been opposed to the appointment of sub-i nspec t ors to factories. He had always wished that inspectors should be gentlemen of a certain claas and standing in society, whose reports might be relied upon by the Legislature and the country. He should like to see those individuals selected from a higher class, for he did not wish to see subordinates sent into mills and factories, by which the • secrets of trade might transpire in quarters which the House never intended. What he should recommend was, that they should select men of talent and education for this office. He also objected to any central office being fixed in London, be cause if there was any business to be done, it ought to be done in the manufacturing districts. If there was to be any inspection at all, let it be full and efficient. It was not in the large towns that inspection was so much required as in the more remote localities. He also thought that those clauses in the Bill which referred to the guarding of ma chinery were superfluous, as he believed that the acci dents arising from this cause had been grossly exag gerated. Mr. HINDLEY rose to explain. He said he had heard those charges repeated three times during the debate of 1836 ; he did not reply to them at the time, but as he heard them cheered by Hon. Mem bers now, he supposed that they really believed them to be true. In 1836 he was connected with a large concern in the north of England, and he expressed a wish that they would observe the provisions of the Factories Bill. He himself lived 200 miles away from it in the metropolis so that he could not per sonally apply to know if his partners observed its provisions. After the House broke up he went down, and asked the manager if be observed the Factories .The manager replied " No." He (Mr. Hindley) said " I hope you have worked only twelve hours.' He said they had worked twelve hours and a half. He (Mr. H.) asked why they did so. The manager replied that at Sta y le y -brid ge they worked twelve hours and a ha lf, and that th ey were , therefore, obliged to work the same time. When he had become acquainted with these facts, he too k care that they should-not;continue so a minute longer than he had the power of correcting them. When the factory inspectors brought the matter before the bench, he. (Mr. H.) did not seek to diminish the force of the accusation. He did not even make his appearance on the bench. The sons of his partners came to him to know what, should be done. He (Mr. Hindley) told them that they must pay; whatever fine the Magis trate ordered, and if they did not do so, he should pay it himself, because, being in partnership, he was legally bound to do so. They were fined 201. each, and he believed that this 401. was the largest fine ever paid. But what was the real state of the case The pienechaainst him as ordera to diminish g That was what he cared factory t ai o wn r fl y . mu s ea u nk p c e e e r r a n n nt ethat e n iai t w s o -li m bs er a e d . a e k a e r s , peech, and disse minatedfwoar Opponents s. not t it to wayto every vn o e f r y his whichA e h t mi e a eb r opponentsthe of the measure should have acted. They thought to crush him and the question ; but they would be mistaken.—(Hear.) Mr. FERRAND said he had attended a meeting of the operatives of Manchester on Wednesday evening last, who expressed their delight that they were about to legislate for the working classes of the country. They had expressed a desire that the two Hon. Mem bers for Manchester would meet him, but they did .not show their face, because they knew that the merits of the case were with the operatives. How came it that the master manufacturers throughout the coun try did not meet the operatives ? Because they knew that the working classes had truth on their side, and that falsehood and injustice was on the side of the master manufacturers. If they had not felt afraid, why did they not come forward and confront the ope ratives ? Because the operatives were an intelligent class of men, and men better able to discuss the ques tion than two thirds of the Members whom he now addressed. The Bill was then read a second time On the motion that the Bill be committed, in order that it be postponed, Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to put a question to the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. That Hon. Gentleman had stated that a Minister of the Crown had used his influence as a Minister of the Crown to induce an officer of the Government, he believed an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, to make a false re- turn to that House for the purpose of crushing a Member of that House.—(Hear hear.) He was jus tified in asking who was that Minister of the Crown who had thus used his power ; who was the officer whom the Crown employed ; and who was the Mem ber sought to be crushed, for it must have been that a fly was crushed upon the wheel. The Hon. Gentle man must give them a peculiar light on the matter as to who the Minister of the Crown was who had used the power of the Government to induce a sworn officer to make a false charge to the House for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House. But if the charge turned out to be false, what where they to think of an Hon. Member who accused a Minister of the Crown with using the authority of the Govern ment to induce an officer of the Government to pro- pagate falsehoods which would be a disgrace to hu - man nature ? Mr. FERRAND said the Right Hon : Gentleman had not been able in this case to avail himself of that system to which he generally resorted in that House, of coming down to take an undue advantage of an llon. Member. Luckily, he (Mr. Ferrand) was prepared, as far as his own recollection went, to state to the House the circumstances to which he referred. During the discussion of the New PoOr4aw in that Honse, it happened that he addressed the 'House. After he had sat.down—he it was immediately on his resuming his seat—the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment drew out of the box opposite to him a report, from which he made charges against him (Mr. Ferrand) as a rate-payer and inhabitant of the Keightley union, which he knew were false. That report had been obtained by the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, Mr. Mott.— (Hear.) A Committee of that House was appointed to inquire into the allegations of that report. Magis trates, poor-law guardians, servants of the Union, de clared, one after the other, that it was untrue, and some of them that it was scandalously false. A Committee of that House had declared, though he was sorry to say that that Committee did not do justice under the circum stances of the case, still it declared that many parts of that report were overcharged. But he was not going to be put down by the report of that Committee. He came to that House and asked for fresh returns, to procure justice for himself and liar the fate-payers of the parish. The Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, op posed those returns. He in vain applied to that House to grant them. There was an inclinaron at first to prevent him from obtaining them, but, at last, the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, said he thought it would be unjust on the part of that House to refuse him those returns. Noes were counted on that order, and it was found by the Government that they would be in a minority if they resisted his motion. But what was the result ? The returns, which were not laid on the table till the end of the session, proved that the report was false ; and before another session came Mr. Mott,. the Poor-law Commissioner, was dismissed, and thus prevented from being brought to the bar of that House. Under the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the Government to give information to that House and to this country as to the reasons of the dis missal of Mr. Mott.—(Hear, hear.) He himself again brongkt that question under the notice of the House. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to do justice to the rate-payers of the parish of Bingley. He could tell him that there was not a rate -payer of that parish who was not fully prepared to stand by him, and to prove that the report was scanda lously false; and until the Right Hon. Baronet the Se cretary of State for the Home Department told him (Mr. Ferrand) and the country how it was that report was brought out of the box, he could not cease to repeat what he had said on this subject. Mr. ROEBUCK said he must complain that his ques tion had not been answered. He had appealed to him to establish that an officer of the Crown had used his power and influence over an officer in the employment of the Government 'to induce him to make a false report.— (Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had done nothing but prove that the report was false. The charge still remainedthat an officer of the Crown had used his power for such a purpose, and how scandalous the charge was the Hon. Member had not shown.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FERRAND did not know what the Hon. Mem ber meant by using such language. Mr. ROEBUCK said his language was plain, and what he meant was plain. - - Mr. FERRAND said the Hon. Member was not go ing to school him. He had used language in that House which was unbecoming him as a Member of that House, and as a gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) The SPEAKER said he must call upon the Hon. Member to retract his expressions. Mr. FERRAND said he would 'willingly do every thing the Speaker wished. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether the Hon. Member repeated the charge to which he had referred? (Hear, hear.) Nlr. FERRAND said what he stated was, that the Right Hoh. Gentleman had used his influence to procure a &lie report. Sir J. GRAHAM said, until the last words which fell From the Hon. Member he had looked with great indif ference both to the charge and to the discii . ssion itself. The Hon. Member had deliberately asserted that which he (Sir J. Graham) had hardly thought he could have taken upon himself to assert of him, much less in his presence and before that House, viz., that he (Sir James Graham) had used his official power to obtain a false report. He (Sir J. Graham) did not think it worth while to move that the words be taken down, which was the usual course in such But there was no mistake that the Hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated, after some deliberation—because he avoided unnecessarily the question in the first instance, and the question was then repeated—that he was pre pared to assert that he (Sir J. Graham) had used his official power and influence to obtain a false report for the purpose of crushing him (Mr. Ferrand). He thought it would be impossible, considering that assertion, and considering the position which he (Sir J. Graham) held by favour of her Majesty—considering that the assertion was deliberately made—he was quite sure the Hon. Member would, as well as himself, feel that it was im possible to demand redress then, but he hoped that the Hon. Gentleman was prepared to take the proper course to substantiate the charge.—(Opposition cheers.) — MI.HUME said there was another question which he deemed of greater importance. It had been asserted that the Right ;lon. Secretary of State had made use of his official influence to induce the Hon. Member who sat behind -him (Mr. Hogg, we understood the Hon. Gentlematan refer to), when Chairman of the Notting ham Election Committee to commit perjury ; for such was in reality the nature of the charge, as he presumed the Chairman, as well as the other members of an Elec tion Committee was sworn to deliberate and decide, ac cording to his conscience. It appeared to him that that was a most serious charge brought against the Right Hon. Baronet himself, and against the lon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee in question, and he should be happy to hear some explanation of it. Mr. FERRAND—I beg leave to say that I never used such an expression. —(oh, oh.) Mr. WARD—I am bound to say that the impression was sedulously inculcated in the country at large— (Cheers)—that the Chairman of a Committee of this House, in the tlischarge of his duty, which was to decide between the conflicting claims of two parties, had grossly violated that duty, and that he used subterfuge in order to get rid of a Member of this House who was supposed to be obnoxious to the persons in power, and who was an advocate of the rights of the working classes—that he (the Chairman of the Committee) discharged his . duty in such a way as to cause the whole House to cry shame upon him when he made the report to the House, and that the only, the solitary voice which cheered him, was that of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. And I had no idea when I Ca tered this House that such a question as that which is now before us would have been brought forward, and of course I could have no intention of taking part in it; but I will just advert to something which has been stated at several of these public meetings to which refe rence has been made, which was, that such was the sense entertained by the House respecting the Factory Bill, that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern ment had stated on one night, when leaving the House after a discussion on this Bill, that the Christian feeling of the House had beaten the Government on the factory question.—(Loud cheers.) I cannot help hoping that the good feeling of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) will induce him to say that he has been misled by the warmth of his own feelings on a subject in which he takes an interest; and that he had not at tached sufficient importance to the words he was using, and that he was not at the moment aware of the deep im pression which they were calculated to make on the minds of men who naturally supposed that the Hon. Gen tleman must be better acquainted with what is passing here than they could be. Mr. FERRAND—I am quite prepared to stand by what I have said, but I never recollect any such expres sion falling from me. Mr. WARD—Mr. Oastler. Mr. FERRAND—I am not Mr. Oastler's keeper. The Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was, a short time ago, but he is now at liberty.—(Laughter.) But with respect to the language I used relating to the Not tingham electi" I have to state that I never said " the whole House." I said, " those who sat on thisside of the House."—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Mr. HOGG—I hope the Hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to state to the House what lie did say.—(Loud cheers.) I hope he will be kind enough to state distinctly what he did state, and I hope that he will either avow or disavow the report of his speech, which never would have met my eye if I had not seen a prominent part of it, which was given in one of the leading columns of the Times. That particular statement respecting myself I saw, but the other statement which has been alluded to I never saw, and never heard of until this moment.-- (Cheers.) But I hope the Hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to tell the House whether he has seen the re port of his speech in the Times newspaper, and I hope that he will distinctly state to the House, and I hope the House will think that I have a right, not only to request —(Here the Hon. Gentleman was interupted by loud cheers)—as an officer of this House, in the discharge of a most solemn duty—a right to demand that this House will require that HOB. Gentleman distinctly to avow or to disavow the speech as reported, and which has been so promisiently put forward in a leading article of the Times newspaper.—(Great cheering.) ' Mr. FERRAND—I saw the leading article in the ' Times, and the words which I used, and what I asserted on the occasion referred to, are there Incited, and are entirely correct —(Oh, oh, some cheering, axd consi derable disapprobation.) Mr. HOGG (with much warmth)—l beg, then, so lemly to declare that it was not my intention to take the., slighteq notice of what appeared in that paper, or of what . fell from the Hon. Gentleman. I did not act solely upon my own impression, or upon my own opinion. I am not peculiarly sensitive, for I know that men in public situations of life are ,liable to have their conduct made the subject of public comment, and I am not particularly sensitive When I know the quarter from which imputations come.—(Cheers.) I took the opinion of friends upon both sides of the House, and of gentlemen out of this House, as to the course I should pursue. They told me that this matter was unworthy of notice—(Cheers)—and they desired me to take no notice of it, either out of the House or in the House, and I confess that that advice accorded with my own impression. Sir, I have been for a long period a Member of this House, and elsewhere I have been long before the public. I hail no anxiety—l hope I did not place a presumptuous confidence in my own character — but I had no anxiety—and, therefore, I felt satisfied with the advice given to me, that the observations which were made by the Hon. Gentleman were not deserving of con sideration.—(Cheers.) But it now assumes a very dif ferent character. I should disregard what fell from the lion. Gentleman when he was itinerating the country, and vituperating men with wholesale and foul calumny. But when he avows before this House—when he states in his place in Parliament, that a sworn officer of this House, in the discharge of his public duty, was influ enced by a Minister of the Crown grossly to abandon that public duty (a duty which he was sworn upon oath Lo di;charge) for an in" and a foul purpose—Sir, it be- ~. . - - comes incumbent upon me no longer to treat the matter - - - -.— with indifference or contempt, but to call upon the Hon. Gentleman to substantiate his charge.—(Cheers.) Ido nut want him to substantiate the charge. I call on that Hon. Gentleman to rise in his place, and leave, if he can, upon the minds of this House a doubt—or leave upon this House the slightest suspicion, that in the discharge of my public duty I was influenced by dis honest or dishonourable motives.—(Great cheering.) If he should raise that doubt—if he - should raise that suspici,,n—let me be covered with well-merited obloquy, and let me depart this House as a man no longer worthy to take his seat, being no longer worthy of confidence.— (Continued cheering.) But there is another view of the question. If that Hon. Gentleman cannot raise that doubt in the minds of this House—if he fail to satisfy this House as to his grounds for doubting my hone ur and integrity, then let that Hon. Gentleman be branded as the asserter of foul and false calumnies—let him stand convicted as such before this House and before the coun try, and it will be then for him to consider whether he is worthy longer to sit in this assembly, or command respect as a gentleman.—(Continued cheering.) I repeat my calm declaration, that I had not the slightest intention of bringing this matter before the House, but when it was repeated by the Hon. Member in his place in Parliament, I must of course notice it, and throw myself not only on this side of the House but on the other. I appeal to your feelings as gentlemen— those feelings which, I know, are always responded to. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—l speak in the presence of those gentlemen who are in the habit of appointing Committees—and I say that I have never sought to be placed on any Committee in my life; and I may add, that I never refused to discharge, to the best of my humble ability, any duty the House might be pleased to impose upon me. They imposed on me the arduous—the painful—the sacred—the so lemn duty of Chairman of an Election Committee, which I discharged to the best of my humble ability as their sworn officer, and I claim from them the right to be supported. I claim this from them. If lam guilty, I will willingly submit to the consequence, and I will submit to be branded with infamy. But I require from this House protection. If the Hon. Gentlemen cannot state the grounds for his accusation, or raise a doubt in the minds of this House, then I claim that he should be branded in the manner he deserves.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—When, Sir, I uttered the language which the Hon. Gentleman has now brought before the Houso, I was alluding to the feeling of this House on the occasion when the Hon Gentleman presented his report, and I said that when then the Hon. Gentleman did so he displayed a good deal of " haggling." Mr. HOGG—That is not the part. It is that part in which you said, the Right Hon. Baronet influenced me to commit perjury. Mr. FERRAND—The Hon. Gentleman is, I believe, labouring under a mistake when he says that I used such language, I did not say anything of the kind. If the lion. and Learned Member for Bath had given me notice of his intention to put these questions to me, or if the Hon. Member for Montrose had done so, I should have had the newspaper in my hand, and I should have been pre.. pared to have read the language which I uttered. They have not given me that opportunity, knowing, that as I had not the newspaper present, it would be a good time for them to take me at a disadvantage, and they have done so. When I used the language to which the Hon. Member for Beverley has referred, I was alluding to the feeling of this House on the occasion on which he pre sented his report; and I said that when the Hon. Mem ber for Beverley was " haggling" and " higgling" through an excuse, those on this side of the House lis tened with feelings of disgust. There was but one Member on this side who cheered, and that Member was the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department.—(Laughter.) Now I believe that is as nearly the language I used on that occasion as possible.—(Cries of" No, no.") Yes; and if I had known I would have been prepared to read the very words to the House, and, as I told the Hon. Gentleman, those words in the leading article to which the Hoa. Gentleman has referred, to the best of my knowledge, are the words I uttered. But if the House and the Hon. Gentlemen think proper, I will to-morrow bring down the Times newspaper with me, and I will be prepared to stand by those words again to-morrow. I will not retract them, for the words I used were the result of deliberate obser vation as to what took place when the Hon. Gentleman explained to the House his proceedings on the Notting ham Election Committee. The Hon. Gentleman could not have forgotten that he felt himself called upon to explain the proceedings of that Committee. There was a strong feeling in the country that the Hon. Gentleman should not hold his peace as to his conduct on this oc casion ; and after the report was presented, the Hon. Gentleman found it necessary to stand up for half an hour together and attempt to explain the proceedings in that Committee. lam a public man as well as a Mem ber of this House, and I have a right to form an opinion as to the proceedings of that Committee, or of the mem bers who were upon it. I will not hesitate to give my opinion upon them or upon what I should consider the public conduct of this House. If this House, or any friend of mine should tell me that I used language that was too strong, I will re tract it, but I will not be intimidated, as I have been attempted to be intimidated, by men who have not dared to meet me on the hustings—(Laughter)—but who are jealous of the unanimous regard and affection which has been shown to me by tens of thousands of injured men— men whom you (pointing to Lord J. Russell) have de ceived—yes, and who have cast you oft.—(Laughter.) I will stand to what I have uttered out of this House, and I will maintain it. Sir R. PEEL rose, but gave way to Sir J. GRAHAM, who said —Sir, there is no "hag gling" or " higgling" here.—(Cheers.) We are in the British House of Commons ; and the Honourable Gen tleman has accused me, as a Minister of the Crown, of having exerted my influence as a Minister to obtain a false report for the purpose of crushing him. There shall be no surprise. He says that I, as a Minister of the Crown, used my influence with a Member of this House— Mr. FERRAND—No, I did not say so. Sir J. GRAHAM—I understood the Hon. Gentleman to refer to the Hon. Member for Beverley, as Chairman of a Committee of this House, with whom I used my in fluence. Mr. FERRAND—No, no. Sir J. GRAHAM—Very well. I will have no sur prise. Again, I repeat, that we have no " haggling" or " higgling" here, but to-morrow I will not appeal to the generosity or the fairness of the Hon. Gentleman, but I will appeal to the generosity and the fairness of both sides of the House, and I expect that to-morrow the Hon. Gentleman will come down with a specific charge against me—not only as a Minister of the Crown, but as a Member of this House, whose honour he impeaches, and whose official character he impugns. I call on him, or rather I call on the House to compel the Hon. Gen tleman, to be specific in his allegations, and I challenge the Hon. Gentleman to any inquiry before any tribunal —before any Committee of this House, however consti tuted. I will not challenge the name of any Hon. Gen tleman who may be placed on that Committee, and I challenge the Hon. Gentleman to prove any such charge as that he has brought against me. Mr. FERRAND—To-morrow I hope the Right Hon. Baronet will be pressed to explain how he became pos sessed of that document which he took out of his box to use against me.—(Cheers and l a ughter .) i th l in b:g th ) e rou pnrdon, but is no laughing matter; an d in terruptionsunbeeomingoLt(hßeeHneowne. dMleamuglibetrefro.)r B l at a h ga ar in e excessivelythat I expect i s on that his trial to a tomorrow well row a thes Rightmyself—will sel— wHon.il be ß a r ub on l e e t for he to explain to the House in what manner he became pos essed of that repo rt, which he drew out of his box, an d vZhich he used against me almost immediately, if not immediately, on my resuming my seat in the debate on the new poor-law. Mr. HOGG—I hope that I shall be permitted to bring the report to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred, and to read that report to the Hou se ; an d if i tdshould not be liable to the imputation which has been east upon it by him, I hope the House will call on that Hon. Gen tle ma nto disavowany mannert hat which you h p e le please, either utter e d b , e o fo r r to e this re quire him,in or any other tribunal, t o b r i ng his proofs; tmd I will be satisfied, if he should ra i se a d ou b t or suspicion as to my integrity, to submit to the consequences. If on the con trary, he should fail to do so, I hope the House will visit him in the manner he deserves.—(Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I do not think that it very much matters what are the particular words and ex pressions which were either used by the Hon. Gentle man, or were reported in the Times newspaper. The question will be whether the Hon. Gentleman can al lege, or can give proof in support of such allegation, that the Right Hon. Gentleman caused, or directed, or pro cured, a false report to be made to him for a specific purpose. It would be beside the question to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman had received a report in which some of the facts were inaccurately stated, and that he used that report, relying upon the authority of an inspecting officer without having verified fhe facts. The question is whether the Right Hon. Gentleman used his influence, with the intention of procuring such a result. Then with regard to the Hon. Member for Beverley, the Hon. Gentleman said th a t the Hon. Memberrfor Beverley had thought it necessary to make an explanation as to his conduct as chairman of the committee, and that certain Members of this House— on a certain side of this House—had listened to that ex- dom, in the years ending the sth day of January , 1842, 1843, an:l 1844, distinguishing the actual pay ment for the expenses incurred in the collection and management of the revenue ; for the charges of the public debt (the terminable. annuities being also valued by estimate) ; for the expenses of the Civil Government; the allowances to the Royal Family, and to his Majesty the King of the Belgians ; the establishment of the Lord Li eutenant of Ireland; the expenses of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Civil departments: the other pensions on the Conso lidated Fund, on the gross revenue, and the Civil List ; also, the 'payments for the administration of justice, diploma expenses, and on account of the sums voted for * 14ie army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous services ; also 'public works, bounties, Post-sffice, the quarantine and warehousing establishments, and all other payments, not coming under any of the fore goirg heads; witlf‘an appendix, showing the several items composing each head of the account (in con tinuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 494, of session 1843). —Agreed to. MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND). Mr. F. FRENCH rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it were the inten tion of her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill into Parliament, during the present session, for better regulating and rendering more efficient the Medical Charities of Ireland ; and, if so, whether it was intended that such Bill should contain provisions similar to those contained in the Bill for the better regulation of Medical Charities in Ire land, introduced by her Majesty's late Go vernment in 1837 ; or provisions similar to those contained in the Bill for the like purpose introduced by the Noble Lord the present Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1842 ; or any or all of the provisions re commended by . the Select Committee appointed last session to inquire into and report upon the Medical Charities in Ireland Lord ELIOT had nothing to add to the statement which he had already made upon the subject, which was, that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure for the regu lation of the Medical Charities in Ireland during the present session. TAXING-OFFICERS IN BANKRUPTCY. Mr. SCOTT isished to know from the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Secikary of State for the Home Department, if it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the appointment of a taxing-officer in Bankruptcy. In the Bankruptcy Bill, which had passed two years ago, there had originally been a clause appointing a taxing-officer in Bankruptcy ; how the clause had dis appeared he knew not, but he wished to know if it was now intended to appoint a taxing-officer. Sir J. GRAHAM had not received the notice which the Hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to give him of his intention to put the question until after he had entered the House. If the Hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to put his question to-morrow, he would make the necessary inquiries in the meantime, and be prepared to give him an answer. SPAIN—AFFAIR OF COLONEL BONET. Mr. BORTHWICK wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman a question relating to certain occurrences reported to have recently taken place at Alicant, in Spain. It was re ported in the newspapers that Colonel Ponta leon Bonet, who had been at the head of the late movement at Alicant, and who had conducted himself with great humanity towards the prisoners who had fallen into his hands, had, after a compromise entered into by the person commanding the fort of Alicant with the besiegers, made application to the com mander of a British ship at Alicant to receive him on board, representing that unless he was taken on board the ship it was impossible that his life could be spared, and reminding the officer in command, in co.:- firmation of this inference, of the ir *a tment which other persons in his position had experienced at the hands of Roncali when they had fallen into his power. It appeared—at least it was so represented—that at the same time a major who had acted under his com mand made a similar application, under precisely the same circumstances, to the captain of a French vessel lying in the same port; that the major was successful, and that in consequence he was at that moment alive. On the other hand it appeared that Colonel Bonet was refused to be taken on board of the British ship ; that he then returned to the shore, and in making a desperate effort to regain the mountain, was taken, and by the orders of Roncali, was shot instantly, and without trial. The question which he had to put to the Right Hon. Gen-. tleman was whether, according to the representations in the newspapers, express and direct orders had been given to the officer commanding this and other ships, to refuse, under these extreme circumstances, to take on board Spanish subjects ; whether, in the absence of these instructions, the officer, acting on his own responsibility, had refused to take Colonel Bonet on board ; or whether the statement was altogether without foundation, or, as he was informed, exceed ingly exaggerated. Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to the question put to him by the Hon. Gentleman, he had io state that no specific instructions had been given by her Ma jesty's Government, or by any authority acting under their control, with respect to applications of this nature. The general purport of the in structions given to the commanders of Bri tish ships of war during these unfortunate civil contentions in Spain had been to afford protection . to the lives and property of British sub jects, but to observe, "as far as possible, strict neu trality between the contending parties. In this case no special instructions had bean given. It was quite clear that if British ships of war were, as a matter of course, to receive those who had been engaged in insurrection against the constituted authorities, and that were known, it would be a great premium upon insurrection ; because they might try the experiment with perfect assurance of being received by a British ship of war. No express instructions, therefore, were given with respect to the reception of refugees under such circumstances. The general instructions were the same now as he believed they had always been, to maintain, as far as possible, strict neutrality ; and it was left to the dis cretion of individual officers to deal with any parti cular case. And with respect to the case of Colonel Bonet, as reported in the newspapers, if he (Sir Robert Peel) were to judge from the only report which was in the possession of ter Majesty's Go vernment, received from Captain Drummond himself, he should say that the circumstances stated in the newspapers could not have been true. He held in his hand the report of Captain Drummond. It made no mention of any application addressed to him by Colonel Bonet. It introduced the name of Colonel Bonet; but he would say that this report of Captain Drummond was inconsistent with the accounts in the newspapers. At the same time it was stated that the Scout ship, commanded by Capt. Drummond, in con sequence of a note received from the Spanish government of their intention to blockade the town of Alicant, had arrived off Alicant,. and that several British sub jects had been taken on board of the vessel, and re ceived protection. The report also stated, that many applications had been made by Spanish subjects to be received on board, which were refused. That was the whole of the information which her Majesty's Government bad received On this subject. As he bad said before, no direct information had been received from Captain Drummond as to whether any application had been made to him. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as no specific instructions had been sent out, of course the conduct of the officer in command of the vessel to which re ference had been made was justifiable. Re (Lord John Russell) would, however, wish to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he had any objection to desire Captain Drummond to furnish a statement of the transaction as far as regarded Colonel Bonet ? Sir ROBERT PEEL--I should think it a matter of course that such a statement will be furnished to the Lords of the Admiralty. On a question of this sort I will take the opportunity of expressing my abhorrence and disgust at the sanguinary proceedings 'which have occurred on the part of the constituted authorities of Spain. Their wholesale massacres without the regular forms of trial, are doing more to injure the character of Spain in the estimation of the civilised world than any other course which the Government of that country could pursue. Ido believe that barbarous nations would observe greater humanity in their con test than is observed by both parties in Spain. FACTORIES BILL (No. 2). On the motion for the Order of the Day being read for the second reading of the Factories Bill (No. 2), Mr.ROEBUCK said he understood from the Speaker, that the proposition which be (Mr. Roebuck) had made on Friday last could not be entertained by that House. He was perfectly willing to bow to that opinion, as he thought he should be able to bring the proposition forward in another way. He should put his proposition in the form of a resolution, and move it on Friday, in going into Committee on the Fac tories Bill. Mr. WARD presented a petition from Huddersfield against the Bill. Captain GORDON presented a petition from Aber deen, against restrictions upon the hours of labour. Mr. GODSON presented a similar petition from eighty firms in Staffordshire. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from a place in Yorkshire, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Mr. W ARBURTON presented a petition from Ireland, praying that the House would pass a Bill to employ the petitioners ten or twelve hours a day, at such wages as the House in its wisdom might think fit.—(Laughter.) Mr. FERRAND presented several petitions in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. FACTORIES BILL. • - • • On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM the Order o the Day for the second reading of the Factories Bil was read. +~s'a±a planation with feelings of disgust. Now here is entirely a separate question. The Hon. Gentleman the Member 3. for Beverley thought it not necessary, an d thought i - would not be superfluous labour, when he presenled•Ns • report, to explain what he considered to be the la* vf b " .- • bribery, and how that law applied to particular transac tions ; but whether the Hon. Gentleman rightly under stood, or whether he mistook that law, is no question for us to investigate or settle. The question is whether the Hon. Gentleman acted honestly and conscientiously in the discharge of his duty—a solemn duty imposed upon him by the House; or whether he acted corruptly or perverted the law for the purpose of either injuring an individual or favouring any particular party in this House.—(Cheers.) That must be the question. I have • no hesitation in saying, that neither of these charges can be substantial. I think I remember stating at the time, with respect to the Hon. Member for Beverley, that I believed he had conscientiously discharged his duty, and that he did as any other man would have done who had undertaken the very arduous and responsible duty of chairman of an election committee. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough must consider that he differed in opinion with the Hon. Member for Beverley, or that a certain feeling was produced as to the accu racy of the judgment of that Honourable Gentleman. The question will be the charge against the honour and honesty of that llon. Gentleman. I must say, with the Hon. Member for. Beverley, that such a charge need not have been noticed in this House; but, having been no ticed—having become matter of question—let the Hon. Gentleman take what time he pleases, let him look to the weight of his language, and to the effect which it might be likely to produce; but he is bound to make out his allegations with respect to the integrity of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De partment, as a Minister of the Crown; and he is bound to make out the charge against the honour and charac ter of the Hon. Member for Beverley, in the discharge of his duty as chairman of an election committee, and if he cannot make out those charges, he will be shown to have unjustly calumniated a Member of this House, and to have endeavoured to weaken the opinion of the people as to the honour and integrity of the Members of this House.—(Cheers.) Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I really am sincerely sorry that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), has noticed in the House of Commons some expressions which I intended to permit to pass over in silence. But they have been noticed in the House of Commons, and an importance has thereby been attached to them. I•know perfectly well what would be the re sult if I were now to remain silent with respect to these expressions. I should be continually told for the next fortnight, such expressions had been alluded to, and I had not noticed them. Now I see it stated, day after day, and in ceived with loud cheers, and expressions of great 'disgust, that on one occasion, when retiring from the House of Commons to the lobby, I was heard to say " that the Christian feeling of the House of Commons had beaten the Government on the factory question." I never said one syllable or anything of the kind. I never said anything which by possibility could be construed into a foundation for such a statement. We find generally some foundation for reports, however absurd and exaggerated they may be ; but I cannot call to mind anything more likely to form the foundation for such a statement, than that I, one night, in the lobby, said, that if the Government took time, and gave an op portunity, to Members to consider the probable effect of interference with labour, very likely the Government wonld be in a majority.—(Cheers and laughter.) I never said anything more nearly approaching the ex pressions which have been imputed to me than that. The subject then dropped. The Committee on the Factories Bill was then post poned till Friday. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. Dr. NICHOLL, in moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, said that although the subject had been frequently under the consideration of both Houses of Parliament, and many Bills brought in and committees appointed to inquire into the best means of amending the ecclesiastical law since the year 1839, yet not one of them had been adopted. In that year, on the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, a select committee had been appointed to inquire into the matter, when a report was drawn up, in which considerable al terations were recommended, and that the diocesan courts should only exercise discretion in testamentary affairs. In the year 1831 a committee was ap pointed, which produced a report making similar re commendations. In 1833 a committee was appointed which recommended that these courts should have the power allowed to them of granting probates, and in 1804 a Bill was brought in which recognised their right of granting probates, but it was never laid upon the table. In 183eanother Bill was brought into the House of Lord bys, the then Lord Chancellor, but it was set aside, and referred to a select committee, or, rather, a Com mittee appointed to consider a petition presented upon this subject, and the recommendation was that the dio cesan courts should have the power of granting letters of administration in the case of all sums under 3001., and that the heads of these courts should be allowed a salary not exceeding 5001. a year, and that they shouldl have certain testamentary jurisdiction. Notwithstand ing all those measures having been introduced so frequently to Parliament, yet they were fol lowed by no practical result. Now many of the principles of the Bill introduced last year were founded upon the report of the committee of 1836, and although the Bill did not get the sanction of the House on the second reading, yet there were a great many persons by whom the principles upon which it was founded were warmly supported. From the feeling expressed out of doors, it was determined upon to retain the testamentary power to diocesan courts. and also to the archbishops' courts, be cause it was necessary that there.should be an appeal to those courts, and ultimately to the Crown ; and also, because it would be wrong to deprive the bishops' courts of that power which the diocesan courts possessed.. There were three hundred and thirty court , . throughout the kingdom which possessed testaineu tary jurisdiction. Now it was proposed to abolish those courts - and establish (with various qualifications recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioner.) in their stead thirty-three other courts. He pro posed that a regularly qualified judge should be appoint ed to each court, who should be paid by a fixed salary, that appropriation of the profits or fees of the court and the practice of the court should be as much as possi ble the same as that of the Admiralty Court. He eke* proposed to introduce into the Bill a power which would confer upon those judges the power of summoning wit nesses, and of issuing commissions. It was proposed! that the rule of practice in court should be deternained4 by the Queen in Council, and that the salaries of the registrars should be fixed and independent of the, fees of the court. With respect to the right of appeal, there were several provisions made in the Bill, one of which was, that right of appeal would lie to the Prerogative Court in London. But if the parties did not assent and agree to pay the costs, the causes should remain with the court below.. Thus far he had stated what was intended to be the. practice of those courts ; and if, with these improve ments and increased powers, the courts should not prove as efficient as the public would desire, further improve ment could be made with almost universal concurrence. In both the provinces the diocesan courts and the prerogative were superintended by the same judges, and were attended by the same pleaders, and it was, there fore, proposed to unite their jurisdiction, giving compel-, sation to the present holders of the abolished offices. 1 was further provided that the registrars of the abolis/seeil courts should send in their registries to the Conned., and that her Majesty should have the power of direeein4 where the wills and papers should be deposited. The Bill provided further, that all probates and settleinwits under them, which had not yet been contested, FahOtad be declared valid, because in making this change, and reducing the number of courts from 330 to 33, it was thought advisable to grant, as it were, a general amnesty. The Bill also proposed in order to provide for the better custody and p . rer Wriavens* tion of those papers, the registrars should report to the Secretary of State, who should thority to direct surveys to be made, and altera tions and repairs as from time to timeashould appear to d r ane th u l t e, provision in re ferencehim to be necessary. There was also which such "- the recurrence of vexatious proceedings,wet ; and it was further given rise to so much comp to brawling in churches,whih w a o u i c il h d p a r s es h e a n ( t t divine worship. Marriagelicenses ggra te d by proposed to abolish all peculiar authorities, such as the Dean and Char. tens , &c. penaltieso cofi f o n r e weretnhoannt non-atten dance power n e ; but it was intended ths authority, with the sanction of the Queen He r.r ot ca a lle g d re o a i t i in 'Coun ceivle,rtO issue commissions giving to persons in certain dis- Bishop, to whom it properly belonged, giving hi- as h ow . g s i r d a e n r t i w n g h licenses.ether powerto coofn measure of improvement, by which netirly three hun dred of those courts were got rid of. The Bill had also received the sanction of the other House of Parliament, t t h ri e cts H t o h a e se and he had not heard of any objection alleged against it by the country at large. If the Bill did not carry out all that he could wish, and all that those who approved of the Bill of last year would desire to see accomplished, there was, however, nothing in it to prevent them carry ing out further improvements at a future time. Ile, would earnestly urge upon the House, under these cumstances, to accept so large a measure of impros _ went, and not to throw it to the winds in the hope, of getting a better measure at another time. He tlo- h aug..t that all was done that could be done at preser,t with the concurrence of a large portion of the people. He concluded by moving the second reading of the Sir GEORGE GREY had thought that when the Right Hon. Gentleman brought this Bill before the House he would have pointed out the particulars iu which it differed from the Bill which he had before brought in, and which he recommended to the House in an able and conclusive speech. That Bill was carried upon the second reading in the House of Commons, by a majority of ninety; and he had not heard one word this evening from the Right Hon. Gentleman to alter or lessen the impression which was then made upon the House.— (Hear, hear.) The measure now proposed was totally inadequate—it departed altogether from the principles the Bill which was last year introduced br the Govert ment through the Right Hon. Gentleman iimself—whi, st s was carried, and in which he (Sir G. Grey) gave 'id s most cordial support. This Bill abandoned the princi ples which had been assented to by the highest ecclesi astical authorities, who pronounced these courts to be nuisanges to the Church, and to expose her to enmity and reproach by their arbitrary and tyrannical proceedings, by which many families were ruined. He (Sir Ga, Orrey)d would oppose the second reading of this Bill, be cause her believed that its effect would be to perpetuat e these o.lv noxious courts.—(Hear.) The Right Ho.' a. Gentleman had told the House that this was a great measure of re form. Without admitting so much, would consider that it was a great advantage to get ' rid of the peculiars, and to improve the administrate on of the remaining courts. It was also very well J take away the juris diction of the courts in case of tithe, of scandal, ands eft' smiling.—(A laugh.) But if tl'iey created thirty-five-- Dr. NICHOLL—Thirty-three. Sir GEORGE GREY said there,„ were thirty-five in .: '