The Sun. — London, England, 1844-04-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HO USE OF LORDS, April 25. The Lon]) CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'Clock. . _ _ Several petitions were presented for and against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Dissenters' Chapels Bill was read a second time pro forma, and ordered to be committed on this day week. SLAVERY. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition signed by the venerable Thomas Clarkson, on the part of the Anti-Slavery Society. The petition prayed that their Lordships world sanction such fiscal regulations as would admit foreign sugar into the markets in this country, provided it came from settlements such as those in the East and Manilla, where free labour only was employed. The petition also prayed that their Lordships would not allow, either directly or indirectly, the admission into the markets of this coun try sugar grown in Brazil and Porto Rico. After a few words from Lord KINNAIRD and Lord BROUGHAM, the petition was laid on the table. The Earl of POWIS presented a number of petitions against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and praying for the establishment of a bishopric in Manchester. The Noble Earl gave notice that on an early day he should call the attention of their Lord ships to that subject. The Duke Of RICHMOND presented petitions against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions to the same effect. The Bishop sf CHESTER presented similar petitions. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a peti tion from Dublin, praying their Lordships to legalise Presbyterian marriages in Ireland. The Noble Mar uis also presented several petitions, one from the Rev. Wm. Turner, the oldest Dissenting minister in the eounty, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, Also petitions in favour of the Bill. THE CASE OF SAMUEL GRAY.. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from Samuel Gray, who was confined in one of the goals in Dublin under sentence of transportation for life. 'The petitioner stated that he had sent a writ of error to their Lordships' House, and be prayed their Lordships to order the inquiry to be conducted without expense to the petitioner. The petition was ordered to be referred to the Appeal Committee. MR. O'BRIEN. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that on Tuesday he should submit a motion respecting the appointment of Irr. O'Brien to the magistracy in Ireland. GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA. The Marquis of NORMANDY said he had a motion on the paper fix Monday next, with respect to certain recent transactions at Owalior. It was his intention in in making that motion to make some remarks respecting the treaty of Bhurtpore, but he had just heard that the Governor-General of India had been recalled, and if this was so, of courseat present he should refrain from making such remarks. He wished to know whether the report of the recal of Lord Ellenborough from India was true ? The Earl of RIPON said it was true that the East India Company had recalled Lord Ellenborough. - The Earl of COLCHESTER wished to know if this step had received the sanction of her Majesty's Govern tment ? • The Earl of RIPON said it had not. Lord BROUGHAM said it was a most extraordinary thing that the Board of Control should have the power of controlling every act of the Court of Directors of the East India Company except that most important one the recall of the Governor-General of India. This was matter which might affect the safety of our Indian em pire, wid yet the East India Company were subject to no control with respect to it. Ile thought this was a groat oversight. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE' said that so far from lis having been an oversight, it had been the subject of the gravest discussion. After a short conversation the subject dropped. WRITS OP ERROR. _ _ Lord CAMPBELL postponed the second reading of this Bill fror Monday to Thursday next. LANDLORD AND TENANTS . COMPENSATION • - BILL. Lord PORTMAN moved the second reading of this BilL The object of the Bill was to give to the tenant security for capital which he expended on his landlord's - property. Lord BEAUMONT opposed the Bill. He believed that if this Bill were allowed to pass, it would lead to endless litigation between landlords and tenants, and he therefore, snored that the Bill be road a second time that day six months. The Duke of RICHMOND was prepared to vote for the second reading of this Bill, provided his Noble Friend would consent to send it to a Select Committee up stairs. The Marquis of SALISBURY would be glad if means could he devised for giving compensation to tenants for their improvements, and he therefore thought this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said this was a subject of very great danger and difficulty, and ought to be approached with great caution. He did not think that this Bill would be so beneficial to the tenants of the country as had been anticipated by the Noble Lord op posite (Lord Portman.) The Eurl of HARI)WICKE opposed the Moon the ground that it would, if passed, open the door to litiga ion. He thought the Bill was unnecessary, and - he trusted their Lordships would refuse a second reading to it. The Duke of CLEVELAND said he should support the Bill, for he did not believe it would have the effect which had been stated by the Noble Earl who had just sat down. He believed the Bill to be admirable in prin• ciple, and one which would be very beneficial to the tenantry of the country, and he should therefore give it his entire support. Lord REDESDALE believed the Bill to be useless, and therefore he should support the amendment. After a few words from Lord PORTMAN, Their Lordships divided. The numbers were— For the second reading 27 For the amendment l9 Majority The Bill was then read a second time. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented several petitions for and against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. 'Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 26. The SPEA ILEA took the Chair at the usual hour. NEW W An Hog. MENIBEA (Mr. Estcourt we believe) moved that a now writ be issued for the election of a burgess to serve in Parliament for the borough of Horsham, in the room of the Hon. Mr. Scarlett, now Lord Abinger. Mr. TUFNELL, who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery, rose to call the attention of the Speaker to the delay which had occurred with respect to the issaing of this writ. He wished to know whether it would not be consistent with the forms of Parliament to issue at once a writ for the election of a Member of that House, 'in the room of a Member who had been called by the death of his father to the House of Peers—to issue that writ immediately that this fact became known. The eldost son of a peer was admitted into that House with out any property qualification, without any inquiry being made as to his claim to such a privilege ; and he (Mr. Tufnell) could not see why a now writ could not be issued without such delay taking place as that which bad occurred in this case. The SPEAKER was understood to say that this point had been settled by Lord Dunfermline when Speaker of that House. It was perfectly true that on the death of a peers the eldest son of that peer holding a seat in that House immediately vacated his seat, but the House had no means of ascertaining whether such Member's claim to the peerage was bona fide or not ; and therefore the only safe course for the House to adopt was to wait for the issuing of a writ of summons. It was perfectly (rue that the eldest son of a peer was admitted into that House without a property qualification; but it was equally true that a claim to that privilege might be founded on error. This had been shown in a case which had recently occurred, in which an Hon. Member qualified as the eldest son of a Peer, and it afterwards turned out that he was not so. Mr. ESTCOURT perfectly concurred in the view whieh was taken by the Speaker. After a few words from Mr. TTJFNELL the new writ was ordered. --- - T ---- LEEDS GAS BILL. Mr. BECKETT moved that the evidence taken be fore the Committee on the Leeds Gas Bill, in the year 1835, and also the evidence taken before the Committee in the year 1843, be referred to the Select Committee en the Leeds New Gas Bill.—Ordered. LEEDS AND BRADFORD RAILWAY BILL. 9,1 the Order of the Day that the report of the Com mittee upon the Leeds and Bradford Railway Bill bo further considered, Mr. HARDY said that ho thought it was neccessary that the Bill should be re-committed. He thought that the Standing Order which precluded Committees on Railways from receiving ma or plans relating to com peting lines shouldbe suspended. When this question was raised in the Committee, he voted against the evidence offered by the opposing parties being received; but ho now thought that he had construed the order too stringently, and es the parties themselves to the Bill had given evidence that there was a shorter line than that proposed by them, it was, in justice to the public, and to the advocates of the other line, only right that the claims of both should be fully examined. He would move, accprding to that view, that the Bill b e To t tered back to the Committee. An Hoyt Martustin seconded the motion. Sir. R COLEBROOK defended the decision to which the Committee had come, and to which he said they were by the Standing Order boun d to come. It had, n b l e i si e des ,as ,betin n proved to the Committee th at the shorter . many respects objectionable, if not impracticable. [At e n n t o e t r h g e , this moment Mr. C. W. W. Wynn was carried House upon a litter, borne by two e g seat . cli th rri m ed ess i Who placed him upon the Ministerial bench, onthe nett to that nazi y occupied by Lord Stanley. Dur_ r. ii2g the silence occasioned by this unusual occurrence, M Ferrand came into the Honse, and took his usual seat, without attracting observable notice.] Mr. J. S. WORTLEY wished the House to recollect that the lion. Member for Bradford, only asked the house to re-commit this Bill. Had be asked anything beyond this most assuredly he (Mr. Wortley) would . have opposed him to the utmost. The question was whether the Committee were justified by any rule or . 1:1 the prutice of that H ouse i n re f us i ng t h e ev id ence tail - Vi*Mieli- hail been .tendered. Had the matter been fully 4-4;r97m6_,* and, fairly so--if they h a d re f use d t o en t e r- •c, - . : ...t A,- vence which they ought to have received, then ~,, Z :: (r. Wortley) thought it would be difficult for them 1 PA ,l 7.i; ! llFeignfil s .to re -commit the Bill. For this reason he t 1,,,-..., . -,.t 4p err the . motion of the Hon. Member for' 0 :- : 12.a kk! r 4- : . ( \.,/- i • .: *:,, - NE6 said the question of the reception I of the evidence had been decided in the negative after fair and due consideration; and were the House to order the Bill to be re-committed, be very much doubted if the Committee would not again come to the same decision as that at which they had already , arrived. After a few words from Mr. REDHEAD YORKE, Mr. C. WOOD said the position of the question was simply this—that evidence had been rejected which, according to the ordinary practice of the House, ought to have been received. The parties ought to have the opportunity of putting in that evidence. Mr. ADDAX and Mr. HODSON having briefly ad dressed the House, Mr. GLADSTONE was of opinion that the Com mittee which sat on the Bill were in error, and that the Bill oug ht to be re committed. The House then divided, when there appeared — For the motion Against it Majority for the re-committal of the Bill —lO2 The Bill was then ordered to be re-committed. NEWQUAY HARBOUR AND RAILWAY BILL. On the motion of Mr. P. HOWARD, the Newquay Harbour and Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. LIVERPOOL GAS BILL. - _ On the motion of Sir H. DOUGLAS, the Lords' amendments to the Liverpool Gas Bill were agreed to. On the motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, the Man chester Royal Infirmary Bill was read a second time. Dr. BOWRING gave notice that, on Thursday week, he would call the attention of the House to the subject of quarantine. RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGIL Mr. MACAULAY said he wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's . Government. He wished to ask him whether it was t ne, as had been reported, that her Majesty's Govern ment had recalled Lord Ellenborough from the govern ment of India? Sir R. PEEL said—ln answer to the question which has been put to me by the Right Hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that on Wednesday last her Majesty's Govern ment received a communication from the Court of Di rectors, that they had exercised the power which the law gives them, to recall, at their will and pleasure, the Go vernor-General of India.—(Loud cheers from the Oppo sition benches.) Mr. MACAULAY said, that, under those circum stances, he need scarcely say, that it was not his intention to bring forward on Tuesday week the motion of which he had given notice respecting the late events in Gwalior. He would roserve the right of bringing that subject under the notice of the House hereafter, but as the administration of Lord Ellenborough had terminated, he could not suppose that the public interests would be exposed to the smallest risk from the postponement of the discussion ; and it would be more satisfactory to his own feelings, and it would clearly be more agreeable to justice, that no charge should be made against that Noble Lord, until he was able to attead in the other House to vindicate his character.—(Hear, hear.) TIFIESUN, LONDON, SATURDAY :EVENING-, APRIL 27, 1644. PRIVILEGE: Mr. ROEBUCK rose amidst loud cries of " Hear, hear,"and considerable confusion, in consequence of some lion. Members not having taken their places. We un derstood the Hon. Member to say (for he spoke in so low a tone as to be scarcely audible in the gallery) that he would not have risen if he had not felt himself imperatively called upon to address the House. lion. Members would bear in mind, that on the last even ing on which the House met, an Hon. Member opposite, namely, the Hon. Member for Canterbury, thought fit, in the performance of his duty, to. make certain observations upon himself. To those observations he had given what answer he thought sufficient. The attack was made upon him in a speech which was some • what elaborate ; but he thought the House would admit that he (Mr. Roebuck) did not lose his temper on that occasion —(Hear, hear)—and that he spoke in such an off-hand way, that it might have been supposed that the matter would he suffered to rest. An Mx. MEMBER here rose to order. If the Hon. Member meant to complain of any proceeding tending to cause a breach of the peace, he ought not to use lan guage tending to create a broach of the peace.—(Hear.) The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member was perfectly in order.—(Cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK said, that btfore he read to the House a letter which he bad received from the Hon. Member for Canterbury, he would at once state that he had no wish to give that Hon. Member the least offence. He then said, and he now repeated, that whenever he was called on to account for, or explain anything that he might have said (as we understood), he should be pre pared to do so.--(Repeated cries Of " Speak up.") He did not regret anything which had been said by him after the sort of node--(Cheers)—in which the Hon. Member for Canterbury had alluded to him.—(Re newed cheers.) The expressions used by the Ho nourable Member conveyed an imputation of a grave character upon him (Mr. Roebuck). The • Hon. Member said that he had deceived his party — that he disguised servility by severity, and (as we un derstood) that he was seeking the favour of the present Government, under the appearance of a foe.—(Repeated cries of " Speak up," the Hon. Member speaking in an unusually low tone, although with a very emphatic man ner.) He bad been called a rebel to the Queen, and the friend of Papineau. To that attack he had answered as he would answer over and over again, but he answered only in fair Parliamentary retort. He would now read to the House the letter he had received from .the Hon. Member for Canterbury. The Hon. Member then read the following letter, but in the same indistinct tone : "Travellers' Club, April, 1844. " Sir,—l cannot determine from the newspaper re port of your speech in the House of Commons last night, nor from what I understood when I heard it, whether to me personally you meant to apply the words dishonourable motives.' If so, I beg to refer you to a letter which I addressed to my constituents, dated July, 1843, in which was this passage—' That as I never asked a favour of Sir Robert Peel or of his Government, I could not have been actuated by any disappointment or obligation in voting against them. Now I call upon you to state that you did not mean to apply these words to me ; and if you did so, either to retract them or A to refer to a friend with whom my friend, Captain Garrett, may communicate. (Signed) " G, SMYTHE." He (Mr. Roebuck) did give answer that Mr. Smythe should hear from him, but not not by letter; but in the House of Commons. But he said to Captain Garrett, " As far as you are concerned you need not be alarmed." Mr. SMYTHE—That was not the answer. The SPEAKER—Order. Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, I am now here to answer for what I have said. The SPEAKER said the letter just read by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, having been sent to him as a Member of that House by another Hon. Member of that House, and the subject-matter of that letter having had its origin in same proceedings in that House, it would be the proper course for the Von. and Learned Member for Bath to hand it over to the clerk of the House, to be read by him at the table.—(hear, hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK' was understood to say he should not give up the letter, unless by express command of the House. He had considered it his duty to advise the House of a fact, but he declined to give up a letter.— (Loud laughter.) Mr. CURTEIS said he felt it his duty to move that the letter refer . red to be read by the clerk at the table of the House. The SPEAKER said he bad before stated the course that it would be the duty of the House to pursue. He must now positively require of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath to , bring the letter up in order to its being read, as it must be the foundation of any such further proceedings as the House might think due to its own dignity to adopt. Mr. llounueu brought up the letter, which was then read by the clerk to the House. After a pause of a moment or two, Mr. SMYTHE said the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, true to his practice, as to his right, had taken one Hon. Member by surprise, because the answer given to him (Mr. S.) by the gentleman he had sent to the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was not that which the lion. and Learned Member for Bath had just reported to the House. The answer given by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath to the gentleman sent to him was this—" He shall hear of this." His (Mr. Smythe's) Friend had replied that he must have " a definite an swer,". to which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had rejoined, " He would send an answer." From that hour he (Mr. Smythe) had been expecting an answer.— (Roars of laughter.) Ile (Mr. Smythe) could give his sacred word of honour that, except to the friend he had sent to the Honourable and Learned Member fer Bath, he bad never opened his lips to any person, or made the slightest intimation of the course he was about to pursue. But this afternoon, he (Mr. Smythe) by accident met the Noble Lord, the Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners), who informed him that he had been given to understand by an Hon. Member of that House, that the Honourable and Learned Member for Bath was about to bring this matter before the House.—(Hear, hear.) Inasmuch as he had taken but one gentleman into his confidence, while the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had chosen to take somewhere about five hundred into his—(oh, oh)—he (Mr. Smythe) was well content that that confidence should be full, unreserved, and ex plicit.—(Hear, hear.) And he must say this—that when the Hon- and Learned Gentlemen who had just spoken about having only made use of a fair parliamen tary retort—he should have perfectly agreed with the lion, and Learned Gentleman, that his remarks bad onlypartaken of the nature of a fair parliamentary re tort if he had madc use of it for the first time.—(Hear, hear.) But it must be in the recollection of the House that that Honourable and Learned Gentleman, upon an Irish debate, during the last session of Parliament; when he (Mr. Smythe) had already t s i a c m s e e v i e n r s i i t n y u , awtiiothn preferredrtehgaatrdhetohalaiimse spoken, ma d e a speech characterised by severe and caus usedneoefsdtahye lf' makingo n w evening. He (Ur. Smythe) was a t the time utterly un able to give any reply to the insinuation, because the Hon. and Learned Gentleman afterwards loft town to attend the circuit. B u t on that occasion he consulted a friend, who told him he could take no notice of what had been said, but that he must contradict the insinua tion. And that insinuation he did now contradict, in the most immediate, direct, and public manner, because he must be permitted to say that it was a grave reflection on a public man, that he should be supposed to act from venal, low, and sordid motives.—(Cheers.) Anti now the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had brought the matter before the House, he must say that he had dono it in a different spirit from what he (Mr. Smythe) expected he would have done. When he under stood that the Hon. and Learned Member had undertaken to bring the matter be l fore the House, he expe c ted that he would have done it in a speech somewhat similar to those he was in the habit of making—a speech full of those aspersions he was in the habit of throwing out. But as the Hon. and Learned Member had not done so, it only remained for him (Mr. Smythe) most humbly and respectfully to apologise to the House, if he had done anything which involved a breach of its order and privileges.—(Loud cheers.) Sir R. PEEL said, according to the course usually taken in such cases, it would be necessary that both Hun. Gentlemen should give an assurance, which they would have no difficulty in giving, that this matter should not go further. Mr. ROEBUCK objected to comply with this, because this would pre-suppose that he intended to pursue that course.—(Laughter.) Sir R. PEEL said that assurance clearly exempted the ' Hon. and Learned Gentleman from any suspicion of in ;ending to do so.—(Hear, hear.) The SPEAKER—It now only remains for me to dis charge my duty by calling on Mr. Smythe to give the House his assurance that he will riot take any hostile proceedings. Mr. SMYTHE—The thing is perfectly absurd.— (Laughter.) If the Hon. and Learned Member chooses to bring the matter before the House, and then says I am not one to bring matters to extremities, thereby insi nuating that I am the person—(Laughter)—and throw ing the whole odium of the position on me—it is per fectly absurd, because you must remember the position in which the Hon. Gentleman places me. If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman is willing to state, that he has taken the initiative in this matter, because he is the most diffi cult man in the world to deal with—(Laughter, and (tries of Order, order)— because he has engaged in some half dozen affairs of this kind.—(Loud cries of Order, order—Chair, chair.) The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman must see that his conduct was not respectful to the House. (He had been asked not to engage in hostile proceedings ; and he (the Speaker) now requested that he would answer that call. Mr. SMYTHE—Then I will do so in one word. As it is impossible to determine whether the Hon. and Learned Gentleman is only here in this House as a Member of Parliament, I beg in the most full and unreserved manner to apologise, for any breach of formulas or forms of the House of which I may have been guilty. I have no more to say, excepting that this matter will not go further. MR. FERRAND'S ACCUSATION. On the motion of Sir R. PEEL, the Order of the Day for proceeding with the matter of the complaintiof the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Beverley, and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was read. The SPEAKER—Is William Busfeild Ferrand, Esq., in his place ? Mr. 'errand rose and bowed. The Clerk at the table then read the report of Mr. Ferrand's speech. Mr. FERRAND then rose and said, Sir, I owe, in the first place, an apology to this House for having been the unintentional means of taking up so much of its valuable time. Had the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath not taken me unawares the other evening —(Hear, hear)—l should, on reflection, have given him the answer which the Honourable Member for Finsbury said he would have given. But, Sir, having in the hurry of the moment been induced to reply to the question of the Hon. and Learned Member, I as sorry that I should have been the cause of thus taking up the time of the House. I owe another apology, Sir, to the working-classes in the fac tory districts, that I should have been the means this evening of depriving them of one moment of that sacred time which they were expecting would be em ployed this evening in debating a question of vital importance—a question to them of life or death. I hope the House will do me the justice to believe that, if any remarks of mine, either of a public or of a private nature, should have wounded the feelings of any indi vidual, I shall ever be prepared to give that explanation to that individual which one man of honour has a right to expect from another. It appears to me, Sir, that there have been unfounded conclusions arrived at as to what I said in reference to the subject now brought before the House. On Monday evening, as far as my recollection goes, I said to this House, that I believed that every word of mine, as reported in the Times newspaper, which related to the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Hon. and Learned Member for Beverley was strictly true; but that I would not vouch for them until I had again referred to that paper, and if they were correct, I would come down the following day and fearlessly and boldly, before this House, either avow or disavow them. I redeemed my pledge to this House. I came down with the full intention of doing so, and so I did. Sir, the House labours under an incorrect impression, when it supposes that I was driven from the House by the rude and unmanly interruption which was offered me by the Hon. Members opposite—(Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches)— or that I fled from the charge. Si-, the charge which was made against me was that I used language at Leeds affecting those two Hon. Gentlemen, and I admitted I had done so. I admit so, for every word in that paper is what I uttered at the Leeds meet ing. When I left this House I adopted a precedent which has been pursued by Hon. Members placed under the peculiar circumstances of myself. I retired from the House, considering it would be Improper in me, and impertinent towards the House, if I remained one moment longer. Having redeemed my pledge, I left, lest I might be an impediment to the free discussion of the subject. I have been ordered by the House of Com mons to appear in my seat to-day, and I respectfully obeyed the summons, as I will obey every summons or order this House may give me if it is justified in so do ing.—(Laughter.) I am given to understand that if I was prepared in my place this evening to plead guilty to the charge, which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman has made against me, that I shall receive a free pardon at his hands—that if I do not plead guilty the House will then proceed to pass sentence on me, without even examining ant evidence—(Cries of " No, no")—that it will proceed to piss sentence on me without producing any evidence as to the construction to be put upon my words. I hope I shall be allowed to say cue word as to the conduct hitherto pursued by this self-constituted Court of Honour. Mr. Speaker—No man, Sir, ever sat in that chair, who conducted himself with more strict impartiality, more gentlemanly demeanour, or more graceful bearing than yourself.—(Cheers.) But, Sir, in this new office as judge of this self-constituted Court of Honour, you yourself have found the greatest difficulty in acting as an impartial judge. Sir, the other evening, when that common in !ormer applied to me—(Loud cries of " Order, order.") I retract the words, but I will never retract the sentiment. (Partial cheering.) Sir, when that public accuser—(lnterruption)—it is a Parliamentary phrase, and it is ungenerous to attempt to interrupt me. Sir, when that public accuser applied to me the epithet of falsehood the other evening, I declared that the language was ungentlemanly. You called me to order. Sir, when one of the witnesses in this prose cution read his evidence against me he supported it by engrafting on that evidence a leading article in the Times newspaper.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, the leading men of both political parties in this House attacked me in violent language, Nay, one of them, in language un justifiable, charged me with a crime, Sir, of which he himself was guilty. Is he a fit judge to sit here? I admit that a more noble or generous-hearted man never trod the soil of Britain; but under the excitement of the moment he uttered expressions which were quite unjustifiable.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, the shouts of revenge which issued from the jury were also within your hear ing ; and let the House recollect that the Prime Mi nister of England, when I bad scarcely left these walls, declared in this House, that by having done so I had deprived it of gratifying itself with a great deal of amusement. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Sir, as a Member of this House, I protest against these proceedings. In the name of the people of England—(lronical cheers)—l deny your right to try me on this charge—in the name of the people of England I pronounce this self-constituted Court of Honour to be an illegal and an unconstitutional Court ; and, Sir, in the name of the people of England, I refuse to plead at its bar.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and partial cheering.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he by no means rose to address the House in answer to the speech of the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down. But his Honourable Friend the Member for Bever ley had, in distinct terms, denied the accuracy of the charge preferred against him by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. He (Sir J. Graham) had not given to the House any statement or assurance in reference to the facts relating to the charge, which was then under the consideration of the House, and it was only for that purpose, before he re tired from the House, that he rose to address them. Now, before the House proceeded further with the consi deration of this subject, they should hear his (Sir J. Graham's statement. The Honourable Gentleman had referred to the authority of this tribunal, and said that he did not come to ask the opinion of the House as to the accusation. But he (Sir J. Graham), as the accused, was entitled to ask them for their acquittal and justification.—(Hear, hear.) He was in a condition to ask for that decision, and he had a right to state what the answer was, both as to what concerned himself personally or what concerned the Hon. Member for Beverley. The first charge, in which he alone was concerned, was couched in these few words—that he was a person who had taken steps to procure a false report for the purpose of crushing the Hon. Member for Knaresbo rough, and that he afterwards dismissed the poor wretch whom he had used as his degraded and ignominious in strument. He had with the utmost diligence endeavoured to ascertain whether he had had any communication, direct or indirect, with Mr. Mott in reference to the report. • He was unable to find any trace of any correspondence with the Assistant-Com missioner. (Loud cheers.) He had endeavoured to find any trace of communication with the Commis sioners, the central authority, under whose directions the Assistant-Commissioners acted. He could find no trace of any such communication.—(Hear, hear.) With re ference to the report which he had used in that House— (Cheers)—he was most anxious to ascertain whether, although there had been no written communication with the Commissioners, there had been any verbal commu nication between them in reference to the report. He himself could not recollect that there had been any ; but he had the positive assurance of the Commissioners that there had been no such communication, and there fore he was in a condition to state in his place in the House, as far as any assurance from him could be given, that no direction whatever had issued from him in re ference to the report. He repeated, therefore, that it was an erroneous statement—deliberately adhered to an ma d n n w o Hmthonoownh. Member , retracted—that he " had used his official power whuees ruron r n to ionwat o ga bta v i ee n , a th. false report for the purpose of crush ing the ehad :u_(sehe doHuafenloa instrument."— ( gea r, that y e t adr li, degraded a g r d d i dismissed ls andsedgn the 0 r poor o . n that and any l s a n u n g h h ttehri.n)g as anything like arg ument were necessary i n such a d en i a l the dismissal by hi m of a person in Mr. Mott's situation was almost en the face of it absurd. He (Sir J. Graham) said mos t pos i t i ve l y that the d ie. missal of Mr. Mott - was not his dismissal—such dis missal did not rest With him. It was in the power of the Poor. law Commissioners ; and he again most dis tinctly assured the House that it was not with reference to this transaction that the dismissal of that gentleman took place.—(Sir Robert Peel here whispered to Sir James Graham.) The House would recollect that there had been a reduction of the Assistant Poor-law Com missioners from ten to five, and it was in consequence of this new arrangement that a selection had taken place, and Mr. Mott was amongst those not retained in his place.—(Cheers.) Now the second charge which had been brought against him (Sir James Graham) was with reference to the decision of the Nottingham Elec tion Committee, and it asserted that he had used his efforts to cause Mr. Walter to be ejected from his seat— that he had felt the necessity of getting rid of that gen tleman, and did not hesitate as to the means of doing so. Now he (Sir J. Graham) must deny that he ever felt the necessity of getting rid of that gentleman at all.—(Laughter and cheers.) Whether that gentleman remained in the House, was to him (Sir J. Graham) a matter of the most perfect indifference. But the allega tion that he had ever, directly or indirectly—in any way or degree whatever, assisted, or wished to assist, in get ing rid of that gentleman—or that he ever commie nicated with the Chairman of the Committee— (Mr. Hogg) in reference to the subject of that Commit tee's deliberations—he could give the House the most solemn assurance in the power of any man to do, that such charge, such allegation was altogether and utterly unfounded.—(Loud cheers from both sides of the House.) Now he (Sir James Graham) held the privi leges of that House in high regard and respect, and he held freedom of debate—perfect unfettered freedom of debate—in like respect. He knew not what course the House proposed to pursue, but before he withdrew he wished to say, as he before said, that he held the cha racter of a Member of that House as part of the charac ter of the House. And when any one chose to assail thecharacter of a Member of that House as such, and more especially when - one of the Ministers of the Crown —he must say that he held their highest privilege to be that of perfect freedom of speech—(Hear)—and he could conceive hardly any language could be too free when a serious imputation had to be made—on reason able and fair grounds—upon a public officer ; .and he could also concede great freedom of speech when an inference from certain known circumstances had to be drawn. But - in this instance the Hon. Member for Knaresborongh had not indulged in an inference from facts, but had made allegation of a fact itself—(Hear) that he (Sir J. Graham) had, in his public and official capacity, procured a false return for the pur pose of getting rid of an objectionable person. The question more or less submitted to the House was, that such a report was made to this House. Now if any further doubt existed on this matter that doubt might, he thought, be removed upon further inquiry. For the purpose of clearing his own recollection he had referred to the Poor-law Commissioners. A reference might also have been made to Mr. Mott himself, who was a witness perfectly satisfactory since he had been dismissed by the Commissioners. But he (Sir J. Graham) did not think it would have been proper in his own case to refer to Mr. Mott, and he had told the Poor-law Commissioners that it would be a breach of duty on their part to make that reference. Still, he was a witness whose testimony would be beyond all doubt, and he might be called by the House itself. The Hon. Gentleman talked about the rights of Englishmen ; the right of free discussion was an invaluable privilege, but there was also another right which Englishmen enjoyed as direct as that—the right of a fair defence when accused. He said that he was an accused party ; he was there to ask for a trial and for an acquittal, and he was quite satisfied that the House would give it to him.—(Loud cheers from both sides of the House.) He was much obliged to the House for the attention they had paid to this question. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said, from the general turn of the speech of the Hen. Member for Knaresborough, com bined with his knowledge of the noble and generous nature he possessed, he was induced to think that they were not at that moment without a prospect of some re lief from this unpleasant affair. The Hon. Member seemed to think that the House would not deliberately consider what was the true construction of the expres sions he had used. He apprehended that he was mis taken in that, and that on the contrary, it was on that subject whi c h the majority of the House wished to be satisfied. If he had had an opportunity earlier, he would have stated that he did not believe then as he did not believe now, and as he would not believe till he heard the Hon. Member state so in his place, that in those ex pressions he intended to convey that most offensive meaning which had been attributed to hits.—(Hear, hear.) lie could not blame the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Bath to the extent that some appeared to blame him; at the same time, he did sympathise with the Hon. Member for Knaresborough for the surprise to which he had been subjected. He could well understand that a noble mind, being taken by surprise, was unwilling to retract a word in the heat of the moment, and would then adhere to what, on reflection, he would be willing to with draw. That was the feeling of the Hon. Member for Knares borough at the moment. He trusted the House would pardon him, if he recalled its attention to the expres sions used. Ile confessed when he heard the expres• sions read—and he was not the only person who felt similarly—he thought they were not so strong as had been represented.—(Hear, hear.) There were two charges supposed to be made by the Hon. Member. The first charged the Right lion. 13aronet (Sir J. Graham) with haring procured a false report ; and the second in volved not only the Right Hon. Gentleman, but also the Hon. and Learned Member for Beverley, whom that Right Hon. Gentleman had, it was said, influenced to make an improper decision. If they looked to the pas sage from which this was inferred, it would be found' that this conclusion was by no means a necessary one. (Hear, hear.) He appealed to the Hon. Gentleman, the; Member for Knaresborough, on the subject, because till: he heard from him that he meant to charge the Right lion. 'Gentleman in the sense of suborning a man know ingly to put on paper that which he knew to be false, he would not believe it.—(Hear, hear.) His words were that he obtained a " report which was false."—(Hear, hear.) He did not say that there were not circum stances which would induce a person to suppose that the charge was not to be taken to its full" extent. What he wanted now was to ask the Hon. Member what he meant, for the words taken by themselves were not so very serious. The passage did not state that the Right lion. Gentleman had used his influence to procure a false report, and that the Hon. and Learned Member for hear.) He believed tilhteahate Hon. Member for r t , he meaning put upon Be h verley va words s o al r esb ;s ri abu h not misrepresentingd y h ew l e dheedn Hon. thoe i ts.ai d( Member' for Montrose was not correct. When the accusation was brought forward, the Hon. Member for Knaresborough said he never meant any such thing. This was, no doubt, 4 very serious matter in two points of view; first, the Hon. Member had brought a charge against a Minister of the Crown that he had made a corrupt use of his office and procured a acquitted the Hon. and LfaelsaernreedpobritembHeer for r r o ß n a e th fu o l f ly bringi ng the subject before the House, because he thought there would be just grounds for a Parliamentary inquiry if that charge could be made out. Again, there was a charge against an officer of the House for corruption in his duty as Chairman. Two more serious matters could not be imagined. Then, on the other hand, there was the danger of fettering the freedom of discussion, which he looked on as a very serious consideration. He rose for the purpose of ascertaining from the Hon. Member for Knaresborough whether he had used the words with the meaning attributed to them, for until he had so he would' not believe it. If he slid, at all events the House was bound to - acquit and the Right Hon. state that there was no g t l h ri eeomußnbi ground Member for forr H t ho Beverley, . S charges cr et a ray whichn of t S o State, been made against them ; and as to any ulterior measures which it might Pt, he would not give any opinion. — ed (Cheers.) e to ado A pause followed, and there were loud cries for Mr. ,Ferrand. The Hon. Member, however, did not rise in answer to the call. Sir R. PEEL would, as the Hon. Member for Knares borough had not made any answer to the application which had just been made to him, assume that he did not mean to address the House. He could, if he thought fit, give an explanation ; but he inferred that it was not the Ihn. Gentleman's intention to make any other ob servations in addition to those which he had already ad dressed to the House.—(The Right Honourable Baronet paused fer a moment and then proceeded.) It then be came his (Sir R. Peel's) duty to state to the House his impression as to the course which it would be advisable for the House to pursue. He begged the House to re collect that the office of adviser which he had now assumed was not a voluntary office. In offering his ad vice to the House, he was acting as he had stated the other night, in conformity with established usage. It was necessary, in order to enable the House to come to a decision, that some distinct proposition should be laid before it. The SPEAKER here interrupted the Right Hon. Gentleman, and stated that in conformity with the usages of the House the Hon. Member for Knares borough ought to withdraw. Mr. Ferrand then rose and left the House, and was followed by Sir James Graham and Mr. Hogg. Mr. P. Borthwick rose and also left the House, amidst shouts of laughter. Sir R. PEEL resumed—When he had been inter rupted by the Speaker he was stating that he had not assumed to himself the office of adviser voluntarily, but was acting in conformity with the general rule, which was, that the first Minister of the Crown in that House should submit to the House a distinct proposition as to the course which it might be deemed advisable to adopt. --(Hear, hear.) He trusted that he had taken no course with regard to this matter which incapacitated him from expressing an opinion as to the affair which had been brought before the notice of the House. He had thought that it would have been better not to have noticed the observations which had been made by the Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) When the subject had been first brought forward he had counselled the House net to come to any resolution, but to take an op portunity of considering the matter. The House had acceded to his counsel, and had abstained from further considering the subject until the next day. After that lapse of time he had recommended to the House not to • consider the address which had been made by the Hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, which he had not concluded, as a finial conclusion against him, but to give him an opportunity, after mature consideration, of stating to the House whether he adopted those expres sions—whether he adhered to those charges, or whether he was prepared to substantiate them. The complaint had been brought under the notice of the House by his Hon. Friend the Member for Beverley, and his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home lie• partment. They had complained that a charge had been preferred against them of improper conduct, in the one place with respect to official duty, in the other with re spect to judicial duties imposed by the House. Whatever course they took, he trusted they should not try to es cape from the difficulty by any equivocation as to the ' nature of those charges. He trusted they should apply to those charges the principles of common sense, and ask themselves this question—what is the imputation which the expressions meant to convey ? It was im puted to his Right Hon. Friend, in express terms, that ' he, being Secretary of State, and standing in an official relation to the Poor-law Commissioners, who were in communication with him, that he took steps to procure a report which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House of Commons. He could not put the construction of the Hon. and Learned Member who spoke last on those words. Could those expressions mean anything but that the Secretary of State took steps to procure a false' report af fecting the character of a Member of the House Commons ? Could there be any doubt what ever upon the plain meaning of his expressions ? If there were, let them look to the expressions which followed in a subsequent part of the statement. It was there said that the Secretary of State dismissed the poor tool who had been his degraded and ignomi- - nious instrument in fabricating the injurious report. Surely, the charge was not that his Right Hon. Friend had quoted a report which had turned out to be erro neous, but the charge was, that he had made use of his official authority for the purpose of fabricating, or pro curing the fabrication of, a false report, and that the man who had made that report was a degraded and ig nominious instrument. How could he be degraded and ignominious if there were merely unintentional errors in the report ? What was the charge with respect to the Hon. Member for Beverley ? It was said that his Right Hon. Friend "having an interest in procuring the ex clusion of Mr. Walter from the House of Commons, this Tory Chairman united with Sir James Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter." Surely the meaning of that was, that Mr. Hogg acted a corrupt part. Again, it w as said, " How happened it that when Mr. Hogg tried to explain away his conduct upon that occasion the whole Government side of the House listened with feelings of disgust while he Nig gled and haggled in his explanation. If it were merely an erroneous construction of the law, why should there have been disgust ? Could disgust be applied to anything but improper, notorious, and cor rupt conduct ?—(Hear, hear.) That was the construe. tion which, applying the principles of common sense, he affixed to the charges which were contained in these expressions. But if there were no imputation of cor rupt motives, what could have been easier than for the Hon. Member for Knaresborough to have got up in his place, and said—" Although the expressions are correct, yet the constructions you place upon them are erroneous ; I declare that I entirely ac quit Mr. Hogg of corrupt conduct in his judi cial capacity ; I think his judgment, which had the effect of unseating Mr. Walter, was erroneous, but I never meant to impute to him any deviation from his duty." Now, was any such explanation offered by the Hon. Member ? He said, " I adhere to the expressions ; I protest against the tribunal ; I will not disclaim the intention of imputing corrupt motives ; the expressions are correct, and I will maintain entire silence as to the construction put upon them." Sir, I don't feel that I am at liberty to explain away the expressions, when all explanation is refused by the Hon. Member who used them.—(Hear, hear.) The charge, against the Secre tary of State was a definite one. It was not like charges which had been preferred against the House of Commons generally—the charges of being influenced by corrupt motives, or of being guilty of perjury. —(Hear, hear.) The charge against the Secretary of State was a definite one : it was that he used the influence of his office for the purpose of procuring a false report. The Hon. Gentle man, in the course of the speech which he had made that night, said, the House of Commons wished to visit him at once with condemnation on account of these expres sions. He (Sir R. reel) had looked upon the Hon. Gen tleman as the accused in that case.—(Hear, hear.) He had thought that the Hon. Gentleman had preferred a charge ; and what he had advised was that the House of Commons should, if the Hon. Gentleman were prepared to substantiate his charge, immediately appoint a tri bunal by which the charges might be established if they were correct. The House had heard the' statement made by the Honourable Gentleman, and he presumed they would then wish to come to some conclusion. He (Sir R. Peel) considered that the impressions conveyed or implied a charge of corrupt conduct against two Members of that House. Tho complaint had now been formally made, and they were now called upon to come to some decision upon it. If the Hon. Gentleman had said that he was prepared to substantiate his charge, ho (Sir R. Peel) would have proposed that a Committee should be appointed to examine into the facts, and re port them to the House ; but as the Hon. Gentleman had pursued no such course, he thought they were called upon to pronounce their opinion on this matter.—(Hear.) He thought the House would have inferred, frond what he said on the first occasion when he addressed them, that he was unwilling to take any step in establishing a precedent for interference with the expression of opinion in the House, and especially it was the right of Mem bers to question the official acts of a Minister. But where the imputation implied corruption, and where the Member declined to substantiate the charge, the Minis ter had a right to appeal to the House for its opinion. He would now read the resolutions which he proposed to move.—(Hear, hear.) The first resolution referred to the paragraphs of the speech which had been read by the Clerk, and resolved, " That in certain expressions in that speech, it was imputed to the Right Hon. Sir James Graham, Bart., that he had taken steps to procure a re port merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of that House, and had dismissed the poor tool whom he had used, as the degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating the report. That in another I pa,sage, in reference to the Committee appointed to try the petition against the return for the borough of Not tingham in 1842, Sir James Graham bad found it neces sary to procure the unseating of John Walter, Esq., the Member petitioned against; and that James Weir Hogg, Esq., a Member of the House and of the Committee, aided Sir James Graham in unseating Mr. Walter."— (Hear, hear.) That was his first resolution, and, in justice to the gentleman upon whom such grave imputations had been cast, he would move, secondly — "That these having been the imputations, and William Busfeild Ferrand, Esq., having avowed that he used them, and declined to substantiate the truth of them, this House is of opinion that the imputations are wholly un founded and calumnious, and have no effect, in the slighest degree, upon the honour and character of the Members to whom they refer."—(Loud cheers.) He thought that these resolutions would do justice, and no more, to the two Honourable Gentlemen who had been assailed. He believed the resolutions to be pre cisely in conformity with the Act—(Cheers)—and he thought that as this matter had been mooted, it was the duty of the House to express its opinion.—(Hear, hear.) He would perhaps now be asked what further proceed ing he would recommend the House to take.—(Hear, hear.) He had looked back to the course which the House had, on former occasions, pursued in matters of this kind, and he found that in some of them the House had proceeded to vote that the charges complained of in volved a breach of privilege. He (Sir R. Peel) was un willing to follow such a precedent.—(Cheers.) One of the present charges was against a Minister of the Crown for acts asserted to be done in his official capacity ; end, in his opinion, they should not go further than declaring them to be unfounded and calumnious, for he foresaw difficulty on future occasions in proceeding to make it a breach of privilege.—(Hear. hear.) He recollected the case where he was himself charged by the late Mr. Cobbett with a serious offence. He was not a Minister of the Crown, but he was a Member of that' House, and Mr. Cobbett called upon the House to address the Crown to dismiss him (Sir Robert inTgheguHilotyuseofhecaornd appear to make a d t l i ' u t e a c e t t l ) e a h l f l a r e r o g g m e e d : b h w y e h P l i i e i r h m i v y h t o o C a bl v d n e i r e s i g l d ' r j a f d c o e r n f o u b c svoelruytidoenesp put impressionhylinupon Cobbett it, uponfori t hado o r r d d c e r r ed ß t o h o e k re solutionso- be expunged from the records of the House, and that by a majority of two or three hundred to four I—(Hear.) The House had thought that an ample vindication of his (Sir Robert Peel's) honour, and a sufficient consolation to him under his misfortunes—(A laugh)—and he was, therefore,-perfectly content, That however was the whole of the proceeding in his case. Another case was when Mr. Tierney brought charges of partiality against Mr. Abbott, then Speaker of the House; when a resolution, moved by Mr. Canning, was passed, that the House ap proved of the conduct of the Speaker, and gave no cre dit to the charges brought against him. They rested satisfied with that resolution, and adopted no other af terwards. He (Sir R. Peel) believed it was infinitely better in matters of this kind to abide by an honourable acquittal of the parties charged, and not to enter into unnecessary contests with individuals.—(Cheers.) Jus tice would be perfectly satisfied by this course—a course which he had suggested on his own judgment, and with out consultation or co-operation with any one. If any other Hon. Gentleman had another course to suggest, of course he was at perfect liberty to do so, and to take the opinion of the House upon it.—(Hear, hear.) It was of great importance that they should be unanimous.— (Hear.) He hoped that after the dechfrat.ons which they had heard from individual Members, the almost unanimous support of the House would be conceded to the course proposed. The SPEAKER was about to put the resolutions, when Mr. T. I)UNCOMBE rose, and said lie wished to say a few words before the question was put. He did not understand the Hon. Member for Knaresborough to say that he could not substantiate the charges, and he thought it would be only fair to call the Hon. Gentleman in again, and give him an opportunity of stating whe ther he could or not.—(Cries of "No, no.") What he had understood the Hon. Member to say was, that he had no further statement to make to the House. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it was sufficiently ob vious that the Hon. Gentleman was not prepared to sub stantiate the charges before that House, which was the proper tribunal. His concluding words were that he would offer no explanation except out of that House, a phrase which he (Sir R. Peel) did not understand ; but the Hon. Member said he protested altogether against that tribunal. The question was then put. Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH said it appeared to him that the Right Hon. Baronet had not completely stated the case. He omitted to state that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough had denied that he meant to impute any corrupt tampering. He distinctly denied that he made any such imputation. He deprecated the course pursued by the Hon. Member, but, as he thought the House would be acting most inconsistently if they pursued the course suggested, he would, in accordance with that opinion, move the following resolution:— " That, inasmuch as the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies did on a former occasion in his place in Par liament, accuse his former colleagues.'— (Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition side of the House.) He should not be deterred from proceeding by these signs of dislike or impatience; it would only give him the trouble of reading the resolution a second time. The Hon. Member proceeded—" of introducing measures for the consideration of Parliament which involved in famous tricks and low thimble-rigging, and as that Noble Lord had offered no apology or explanation, and inasmueh- as the. Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had, in the course of the debate on a former occasion, accused Mr. Cobden of exciting to the horrible crim e o f assass i nat i on, an d ma d e no satisfactory explanation or apology, it is not, therefore, expedient or fitting for this House to discuss any further the lan guage used by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, which was supposed to reflect upon the Right Hon. the Secretary of state for the Home Department and the Hon. Member for Beverley, particularly as the words complained of were not used in that House." The resolution, having no seconder, fell to the ground. The SPEAKER then put the original motion, which was carried unanimously. Lord JOHN MANNERS wished to say a few words on the resolutions ; bat was told by the Speaker that it was then too late, as the resolutions had been assented to by the House. THE FACTORY BILL. On the motion that the House go into Committee on the Factory Bill, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to move that the order for committing the Factories Bill (No. 2) to a Committee of the whole House be discharged, for the purpose of committing the Bill to a Select Committee. The first few sentences of the Hon. Member were scarcely audible on account of the rush of Members from the House. He asked the House to commit the Bill to a Select Committee, because a very general misunder standing prevailed among all classes as to the effect which " the Ten Hours' Bill" would have on the wages of the operatives. Hon. Members in that House enter tained the most opposite and conflicting opinions on the subject, and the working classes in Manchester and other great manufacturing towns were of opinion that, so far from depressing, the Ten Hours' Bill would have the effect of raising , their wages to a very considerable de eree. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department presented a petition, signed by 62 firms in Minehester, in which 30,000 workmen were employed. The petition set forth that the measure, if car ried, would cause a reduction of 15 to 25 per cent. in the wages of workmen. The Right Hon, Baronet himself was of opinion that the Ten Hours' Bill would reduce the wages of the operatives 18 per cent. The Hon. Member for Liskeard thought about 9 per cent. ; and Colonel Torrens, in a pamphlet lately published, considered that the Bill, if passed into a law, would reduce the wages of those to whom it referred 25 per cent. In Sheffield, sixteen of the trades had voluntarily reduced the hours of labour. In some trades the reduction had been from sixteen hours to eleven, in others to ten, and in some to eight hours, accompanied by an increase of wages amounting to 15 per cent., and an increase in the number of hands employed to the amount of one in seven.— (Hear. hear.) Now he did not think that what bad taken place in Sheffield might not be expected also to take place at Manchester. They might in Sheffield work twelve hours if they liked, but by combining among themselves, they had carried their deter ' mination into effect, and the consequence had been to raise their wages, and not to de press them. Trade was not so brisk now in Shef field as it was a year ago, and yet by working fewer hours employment was more general and wages were better. That was not the only evidence he could ad duce. Similar evidence was given before Mr. Sadler's Committee in 1832, which Committee made no report. Now, he wanted to have a report on this point. It the working men were deluded, they should be disabused. The Hon. Member then read from the evidence taken before the Committee of 1832 an extract from the exami nation of a Mr. Whiting, a manufacturer, who said that a Ten Hours' Bill would be of the greatest advantage, and that it would not lower wages. When the people worked the longest hours wages were lowest. Another witness stated his opinion that wages would not remain as they were with a Ten Hours' Bill, that they would rather rise than fall. Mr. David Brook, of Leeds, was of opinion that the masters would gain by regulating the hours of labour, as it would destroy undue competition. The Hon. Gentleman read other extracts to the same effect, and the statement ofMr. Samuel Smith, of Leeds, surgeon, who was of opinion that the reduction of the hours of labour was necessary to the health of the opera tives, and would not lower their wages, but the contrary. Mr. Oastler was examined before that Committee, and gave s'inilar evidence, which he was willing to repeat, as his opinions were unaltered. Mr. Oastler was of opinion that in the first instance the effect would be to depress wages a little, but that the masters would be obliged ultimately to raise them. In 1841 there was another Committee ob tained by Lord Ashley, but that Committee blinked this question altogether, and made no report as to the effect of short hours upon labour.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if the House would consent to a Committee, he should purpose to confine the inquiry to that question alone.— (Hear, hear.) He was told that the Committee would have the effect of hanging up the Bill for a year, but he thought it better for the credit of the House, and for the interest of the operatives, that the Bill should be hung up for a year than that it should pass with a twelve hours' clause.—(Hear, hear.) The operatives, who wished him not to press for the Committee, did so be cause they were led to believe that Lord Ashley would carry his ten hours' clause. But every one in the House know that there was no chance whatever of that.—(Hear, hear.) He begged the House to have this question of wages decided before it passed the Bill. If the Com mittee was an impartial one he would bow to its deci sion, and he was sure, that if it decided against the opi nions of the operatives, the latter, however disappointed they might be, would submit with more satisfaction than at present. The Committee would put an end to the unprofitable controversy that was going upon the sub ject and bring it to a conclusion satisfactory to the coun try, and beneficial both to capital and labour.—(Hear.) Mr. WARD said that in giving his support to the motion, it would be expected that he, who had given the strongest opposition to the principle which his lion. Friend supported, should state at the earliest opportunity the reasons for his concurrence. It would not be supposed that he wished to retract the opinions he had expressed, or by a side-wind to get rid of this Bill. As to the Noble Lord (Ashley) he gave him full credit for the sincerity of his motives, and it was not too much to ask the same credit for himself.—(Hear, hear.) He approved of limiting the inquiry to this particular point of evidence, which had never been fully examined, and respecting which there was great difference of opi nion both in the House and in the country.—(Hear, hear.) There were reasons both in the House itself, and out of it, which rendered it desirable that a Com mittee should be appointed. Two decisions had taken place in the House opposed to each other, and it would be difficult for the House to retrace its steps without new ground—(Hear, hear)—and out of the House any retracing of its steps would be attributed to the worst of motives, to the influence of the Government, and a disposition in the House to sacrifice the working classes to party purposes. (Hear, hear.) No decision would set the question at rest. He had been himself very severely handled by the Chartist portion of his constituents—(Laughter)—according to the pre diction of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) who was in such matters a good prophet.— (Laughter.) He had told them that one-third of the people of Sheffield thought the ten hours' theory could not be applied to any trade which had to compete with foreigners. They replied that they regarded the regulations of trade as the only way of preventing monthly gushes and fluctua tions, and to equalise labour, and that in some trades they were working ten hours, in others eight hours, and in some six hours; that wages had risen ; th a t th e middle classes h a d been benefited, and paupers taken into employment.—(" Hear, hear," from air. Dun combe.) He had now confirmed his Hon. Friend's state ment—let him give the answer.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The system had been in operation only six months, and he would show what had been the effect in foreign trade. He met this morning Mr. Muntz, who asked him, had his constituents all gone mad ? (Laughter.) He answered, not al', but there were some for whose sanity he would not answer.—(Laughter.) Mr. Muntz then told him that lie was in the habit of sending to Sheffield very good orders for the United States. The other day he wrote to them to say that he had a very large order, but he received for answer, that, in consequence of the combination of the workmen, it could not be executed, and the order was accordingly sent to the Continent; and that important trade was most likely lost to Sheffield for ever.—(Hear, hear.) He had re ceived a letter from Sheffield this day (as we under stood) describing the injurious effects which the combi nation had had on foreign trade. A foreigner came over recently, to buy for the Turkish market, but he could not give the prices, and he went to Berlin. Certainly the articles were of an inferior kind, bus the same heads and hands which could make these articles would not require a seven years' apprenticeship to rival us also in the best. In his opinion, generally speaking, it was not for that House to interfere in such matters, but rather to leave things to find their own level. But in the present instance he thought it would be productive of the greatest good if the two parties were brought fairly together, and if they allowed every single suggestion, however im practicable, to be brought before a Committee ; for then they would have such a mass of evidence as must carry conviction to every mind, however much it might have been previously warped or prejudiced. With that view it was that he should vote for a Committee ; with that view he should go into Committee ; not that he (Mr. Wird) had altered any one of his opinions already expressed by him upon this subject in that House. If he might use the term a Committee would afford the means of comparing notes to classes between whom there had been far too much standing aloof. He believed the working classes were too honest and too just when truths were fairly brought before them not at once to &clink: them, and he was satisfied that in a Committee it wohld be readily proved that when capital was fettered_workmen's wages m us t su ff er . C ap i ta l h a d too long beenifagnint in the country. When he saw two of th'elargeat *establishments in the world deriving no profit from their enormous outlay, he was satisfied that intense suffering must find its way among the ope rative classes. There was the establishment of Messrs. Fielden—the largest in cotton, and that of Messrs. AckroYd—the largest in woollen, which in three years time had paid no less a sum in wages than 460,000 L, and they had simultaneously sent in returns to the income tax Commissioners,. declaring that during that period they had realised no profit. He must say he had too high an opinion of the working classes to think they would entertain the hope of any higher wages being obtained by Legislative enactment, when facts and figures were fairly brought before them. And for these reasons it was that, without abandoning one opinion he had advanced, he now felt it his duty to support the motion for the Committee now sought for. Sir J. GRAHAM (who was almost inaudible) was understood to say, that he must oppose the motion for a Committee on this subject more especially as he believed such a step to be inimical to the real interest of the working classes at the present time. In his opinion all Committees of that House ought to be limited to the discharge of certain functions, which could hardly be the case in this instance, for the Committee would not be gathering facts ' but eliciting opinions—aduty he humbly ' believed much better assigned to the House itself. Be sidee, he know no iustruwent, of delay ;to curtain as a Select Committee of that House, and in this instance he (Sir James Graham) w as m os t anx i ous th a t d e lay, which , would answer no useful purpose, should be particularly avoided.—(hear, hear.) It should be recollected that upon this subject there were antagonistic views strong l y entertained and vigorously acted up to, and even the very Hon. Members who proposed and seconded the we' tion for a Committee (Mr. Duncombe and Mr. ward), differed as widely as men could do in their opinions upon it—(Hear, heart)—and seeing that this Committee would be the medium, not of gathering facts—for of them they had already all th a t cou ld p oss ibl y b e o b ta i ne d—but 0 1 eliciting opinions, which it was the province of the House' ' itself to arrive at, he could see no good whatever, but rather much of evil, were the motion agreed to. Of ill' formation they had a vast quantity, and that of the mod . ' elaborate character. Since 1832 they had had Comm' tees that had taken th e f u ll es t ev id ence t h a t c ould be brought to bear upon the subject ; and the Committee now moved for was not for the particular question es which parties differed—it was not for the effect of * reduction of wages coincident on the reduction of the ' hours of labour. The motion was to refer the Bill its elf : to a Committee. Mr. DUNCOMBE said that was preliminary only te,' the consideration of th e ques ti on o f t h e re d uc tion a wages consequent on the reduction of the hours Of labour. it J. GRAHAM resumed—That might be a very important point, taken as a substantive measure, for consideration, but it was not so brought forward now'. The motion now was to refer the to a Select Cone mittee, and to that he (Sir J. Graham) had the strongest possible objection. Why, in the Committee of 1840, of which Lord Ashley w a s th e Ch a i rman , t h e su bject o' ,. factories arid factory labour had been gone into at very great length—all the leading points had been gone with the exception of the limitation of wages (as Wl .' understood the Right H on . B arone t), an d t hi s qu estion had been excluded, and wisely excluded, by that - Noble Lord himself. It was very well known --slot as matter of opinion, but as matter of f ac t—th a t a li m i tat i on of the'' hours of labour must lead to a reduction of wages equi' valent to the saving of the raw material consequent On the reduction of time. The loss must be compensated either by a reduction of profit or by a loss on wages' ' But that was not a question to be raised before a Coins mittee, for the facts were not disputed. For the thir d • time they had arrived at the Committee on a Bill con taining provisions which had been much sought for hi the operatives themselves, which had been much desired', by them, which were founded on moat excellent sutler rity ; and seeing that the measure was ripe for discussion by the House, seein g th a t t h e operat i ves t h emselves ae not petitions for a Committee,- he earnestly entrea7,,. the House not to entertain the prop os iti on o f the ~ Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), but to allow 1 ° 1 " Speaker to leave the chair.—(Hear.) Sir G. STRICKLAND said he must oppose the meti ° 7 for a Committee, as it appeared to him that the result 0., sending the Bill up stairs wou ld b e t o get r id o f it for, the present session. He, f o r one , was mos t anx i ou s ths! this should not be the result of their proceedings on th is question, as he looked up o n th e provisions of the Bill s i ".' extremely important —even without a Ten or Eleven' Hour Bill—for either of which he was most anxious,' He thought no further delay whatever should take place' He had been a member o f C omm itt ees u p on thi s sue, ,‘ jest, and he could truly say the subject bad been mos' fully discussed, and there was no neoessity whatever for. further information. Th e p ar ti cu l ar quest i on now mooted rested upon opiniou, and if they were to set about asking opinions, their labours would be no further advanced a; the end of six months than they were now. He had listened very attentively to the Hon. Gentleman wil; had brought forward th e mo ti on (M r . D uncom b e ), he could only come to the conclusion that not one of tbs, subjects brought forward by him had any referenc e whatever to the matter. What it was for them in that House to do, was to consider the means of bettering the.',, condition of persons e m pl o y e d i n f actor i es , an d t o ester's suitable protection to women and children. This Ws' what they had to set about ; and with this view of the case, he trusted the House would not concede to the' Hon. Gentlenlan the Committee he had asked for. e, Mr. HUME said that n o man i n th a t H ouse o r out o it regretted more than he did that any person, male or female, should be compelled, by circumstances, to work more than ten hours a day. B u t th e coun t r y was 13°1' now in a condition to select wh a t s h ou ld be the ofte number of hours an individual should work, for we were placed in direct and absolute competition with the labour, market of the world. The only correct principle for them to try to act upon, in order to better the condition of the people, to lighten their labour, and add to thee wages, was to extend the market, to widen the field for _ employ. The ques ti on was , w h et h er t h e i r i nter f e rene t : would not add to the ex i s ti ng ev il— want o f employ He knew of no questi on a ff ect i ng t h e wor ki ng Cl more important than s o me w hi c h h a d a l rea dy he e l settled in Committee, and he could not at all admit OSA. this was not a fair case for such an inquiry.' rCommittee had formerly b een a pp o i nte d t o e xittnis , into the rate of labour and th e h ours o f employras n ; and so satisfactorily did the ev id ence b ear ou t his sie' v . o : that the Committee cam e t o a unan i mous dee' ssa si " against interference. At that time the working laboured under the greatest delusion, and attempts w b e i gi now being made to mislead th e m. Th e N o bl e Lord worked on the passions of that House, and had ther,p, hur;ied the House into a hasty decision. A Cortias i bat would come to a different result ; and it was fel t ed. reason that he wished to a ce a Committee appw" it If England were the only manufacturing country' v ri might be all very well to li m it com p et iti on ; b ut a Ye'i different state o f thi ngs i n rea li ty existed. 11); stead of being checked or injured, all possible *lsis' . ance should be given to our manufacturing int rests; If the House interf ere d w i t h l a b our, l et t hem apply the principle of interference to all classes. The cotton ma; nufacture formed but a small branch of the industry Of s: the country. The delusion of th e poor people was th they would receive tw e l ve h ours ' wages for ten hou r labour. In order to correct that mistake, a Commit , should he appointed to investi g at e the matter, an then he had no fear for the result. He thought it -' ts duty to support the proposal of hi s Hon. Friend, in o r der that no delusion might induce them hastily to pas" measure which would hav e an inj ur i ous e ffect on , public interests. Mr. ESCOTT was surprised that the Hon. Mensbel! should imagine that the working classes expected t 0 paid the same amo un t o f wages f or a l ess amo unt 1 , 0 . work.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that &slab son was under th a t d e l us i on ; t h e f a ll acy was one W did not need the appointment of a Committee in ore* to correct it. He should vote against the motion, bc„ cause he believed it to be grounded on an entire fs' lacy .—(Hear.) Mr. G. PALMER had not supported the precO li r l i , of the Noble L o rd t o es t a bli s h t h e per i o d o f ten 110° as the legal period of labour. If interference was as cessary at all, and he thought the N o bl e L or d had ms_s out that it was, he could see no r eason f or th e propos; delay. The sense of the country was now, howei ii ; so fully ascertained in reference t o thi s ma tt er , that thought it might safely be left to the manufactur ers themselves. He would vote with her M a j es ty' s Gover n , went for going into Committee. Mr. VILLIERS said, that if any proof were necesss o l to show that caution ought t o b e use d i n legislating this subject, it would be found in the speech of the to Gentleman who had just sat dow n . The Hon. GeP t w fo man saidthey attached too much import a n ce to the s reign trade, for, said he, only 400,000 p ersons are ! 0 . „ gaged in it. That showed the extent of the informat;; possessed on the subject by not the youngest Mel* $0 of the House.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he undertook 4 say, that 1,500,000 persons were employed in thieot l trade alone.—(Hear, bear.) He wou ld ven t u re tea that four millions were dependent o n th e f ore ign 0. . r of the country.(Hear, hear.) Ho knew the is Gentleman belonged to a school which thought that 0 ought to be limited. Did the Honourable Gentles' le calculate what the effects of that would be. The pel t( who left the agricult ura l di s t r i c t s f or t h e manu f a ctur i te s localities would be th rown b ac k, an d th e p osers , t would be greatly au gmen t e d. Th e quest i on wa s, ont o there to be a Committee of Inquiry. He thought & i f( was a reasonable re ques t. It was sa id t h a t t h e wor"; classes and the master manufacturers were in favour the Bill. Had the working classes:—had the master 0 1, 4 nufacturers sought thi s B i ll ? Th e H on . M e mber 0 Finsbury said that the Bill as it s t oo d, w ithout . „,„1 1 e7ti hours' clause, the working cl as s es did no t wa nt. —(%01 hear.) He was well aware that a T en H our s' Bill n e not be carried.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see the d e s cessity for pressing forward the measure. If the s iti layed it to satisfy themselves of the truth there 'Tr not be much mischief in that. He said they wante°_, f ts quiry. It was said that a Committee was of no ance except to ascertain matter of fact. That was stk o s the stock argument brought forward w h en inquirYe. to be refused. He had no great o pi n i on o f Constu . .," ete iir lt of that House, but he thought th ey m i g h t b e o f as dyer use in collecting opinions as facts. The Hon. Me ls ol for Finsbury, who was a staunch supporter of s a y Hours' Bill, said he did not think this measure Wou l t hers nefit the working classes. Could anybody then sal i d , at was not a doubt upon th e su bj ec t? It h a d beau s'-loor meetings held on the subject, that wages Wel s ir enough; but one of the necessary conseque nc es otS e r, ing this measure would be to reduce wages.- - ,(gose hear.) Their only object in passing a ten hour' w oes' would be to raise the condition of the working e k to iOt r Would it not be wise to inquire whether it would u st them if their wages were reduced?—(Hear, hear.)., t hat been said during this debate by gentlemen oppesrolea they lived in times when they must interfere, as' As yer there must beconstant intervention between the es't o fse' and employed. They would not confine theniselvesooter tories, but would interfere with the relations of •!, ,1 and servant in every department.—(Hear, r.) they only wanted the truth, why should they be re of inquiry. Seme of the master manufacturer/ ",ht it favour of the Ten Hours' Bill, because they thos_tioes would destroy the competition of the small pr o s itt turers.—(Hear, hear.) The working classes,: i ner. favour of it, because they thought that one- six"....tliP mills would be erected throughout the counselthe was, that the competition would be increitseT ec laUs e large master manufacturers were in favour of ras e for one reason, the working classes for the v ? e .... ,4' 1 11 . et!: site.—(Hear, hear.) Couli both be righ. e _ Au tsysclo.' s , hear.) Some of them must be wrong. Ther on vial: ing men thought that if females and ell" That withdrawn their wages would be increased..., l„hour, a delusion, and for this reason, that unskiftl(ffear would not obtain the wages of skilled labeer Or yipg hear.) They had no reason to suppose that Ile: 1 12 1d a p t! men, if they did not labour under a delusi_ollqvenefi!! for that which would injure them instead °' t orals wa s no edep them. The Hon. Member for Finsbury noted t he meddling with the capital of the country. e " a reduction of wages would not follow • di d no 00 .• the working classes could not es tablis fr h irl oca the s i r do l ea li a of the hours of labour. He (Mr. Villiers) _sble _ they could make out that. He knew the 1 11 ... le e 'r he ref fr or e r s : dition of millions of the people, and he :vr 'for inquiry. —(Hear, hear.) He would r!,_„ so rp 4 .ll , Hours' Bill if he thought the conditionof yl eir vt! ,ge. classes would be improved thereby, end