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

/14 AIM= >Mt

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1844.

In the House of Lords, after the presentation of
petitions, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice
that,. on Tuesday next, he would make a motion re-
lative to the appointment of Mr. 013axEri as a sti-
pendiary magistrate

The Marquis of NORMANDY wished to know whe-
ther the East India Company had issued an order for
the recal of Lord ELLENBOROUGH.

The Earl of RIPON answered in the affirmative, but
said that step had not received the sanction of her
MAJESTT'S Government. _ _

Lord Bacot:Glum remarked that it was a singular
circumstance, that the Board of Control should have
the power of controlling every act of the India Board,
except the most important of all—the appointment of
a Governor-General.

Lord PORTMAN moved the second reading of the
Landlords and Tenants Compensation Bill. Lord
BEAUMONT opposed the Bill, and after some remarks
from-various Members, a division took place, when
there' were for the second reading 27, and against it
19. The House then adjourned.
In the Commons a new writ was ordered for the
borough of Horsham, in the room of Mr. SCARLET'
raised to the peerage by the death of Lord ABINGER.
On the order of the day that the report of the
C9mmittee on the Bradford and Leeds Railway Bill
be further considered, Mr. HARDY moved that the
Bill be referred back to the Committee, and on a
division there were for the re-committal of the Bill,
158 ; against it, 56.

In answer to a question from Mr. MACAULAY, Sir
R. PEEL said, on Wednesday her Majesty's Govern-
ment had received a communication from the Indian
Board of Directors, announcing that they had exer •
cised the power which the law gave them, and re-
called Lord ELLEABOROUGII.

Mr. MAcAuwr, on receiving this information, said
he would defer the motion relative to Gwalior, of
which he had given notice, as it would be more
agreeable to justice to wait till Lord ELLERBOROUGH
could defend himself in his place in the other House.
Mr. ROEBUCK referred to a letter which he had
received from Mr. SMYTHE, the Member for Canter-
bury, relative to certain remarks which he had made
as to the politics of that gentleman, and which bore
all the symptoms of a challenge. The letter ended
thus :—" I call upon you to state that you did not
mean to apply these words to me, and, if you did, to
retract them, of refer to a friend, with whom my
friend, Captain GARRETT, may communicate." This
led to an episode in the grave proceedings of the
evening, which was ended by Mr. ShiTTUB saying
that the matter should go no further. It seemed to
be the general impression that the Hon. Member for
Canterbury showed both spirit and discretion through-
out the whole of the proceedings.
Sir ROBERT PEEL then moved the order of the
day relative to the charges against Mr. FERRAND.

The SrE.►xEs asked if Mr.v
FEawAwD was in his
place.
Mr. FERRAND answered at once, and, after advert-
ing to the charges made against him, concluded in
these words :—" In the name of the people of Eng-
land I refuse to plead at your bar."
Sir JAMES GRAHAM denied every imputation
made against him by Mr. FERRAND, and said that
after the most diligent inquiry and search among
Government papers he had been unable to find any
trace of any correspondence with Mr MOTT, or with
any parties connected with the Poor-law Commission.
After some further remarks he said he was an accused
party; he asked for a trial and acquittal, and he
was sure the House would do him justice.
Mr. S. WORTLEY did not consider the expressions
used by Mr. FEERAND would bear out the imputation
put upon them ; but he rose chiefly to ascertain
from that gentleman himself whether he had used the
words with the meaning attributed to them. Mr.
FERRAND said nothing.

Sir ROBERT PEEL then addressed the House, but
was interrupted by the SPEAKER, who said, according
to the usages of the House, the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough should withdraw.
Upon this Mr. FERRAND left the House, and was
followed by Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Mr. HOGG ; Mr.
PETER BORTHWICK closed the rear, amidst shouts of
laughter.
Sir ROBERT PEEL resumed, and, after adverting to
the charges, moved two resolutions, the substance of
which was, that the imputations made against Sir
JAMES GRAHAM and Mr. HOGG, by Mr. FERRAND,
are wholly unfounded and calumnious, and have no
effect in the slightest degree upon the honour and
character of the Members to whom they refer.
After an amendment had been moved by Mr.
FRENCH, which found no seconder, the motion of Sir
ROBERT PEEL was carried unanimously.
On the order of the day being read for the House
going into Committee on the Factories Bill,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the Bill be referred
to a Select Committee. Mr. WARD seconded the
amendment, and, after a number of speakers had ad-
dressed the House, the motion was, on a division,
negatived by a majority of 103.
The House then went into Committee, and adopted
several clauses.

On resuming, the Poor-law Committee was post-
poned till the 10th of May. The other orders of the
day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned
at Twelve o'Cloek.

The FERRAND farce is played out ; and the cur-
tain has dropped upon one of the most absurd pieces
of acting that even St. Stephen's ever witnessed.
There is no stage like the House of Commons for
enactinc, bombast upon—no arena in which the fe-
rocity of the tiger, or the agility of the monkey, can
be so well displayed; and whether it be a FERRAND
that threatens, or a ROEBUCK that squeaks, provided
the roar of the one be not too terrible, or the pipe of
the other too shrill, we know no audience so willing
to listen, to cheer, and to encourage the actors. But
if the bounds which custom has prescribed be over-
stepped—if the least departure take place from that
system of conventionality which allows truth to be
negatived by mistake, modesty to be borne down by
assurance, and independence to be overrun by party
on all sides ; then there is no audience so severe
as the Lower House of Parliament. What bet-
ter stage could have been selected for the display
which three nights have witnessed? What more
favourable audience could have been hoped for; and
what more ridiculous piece could have been pre-
sented, than the one which has been performed,
listened to, and unanimously approved ? Yes, ap-
proved ; for if the farce had not been approved, it
would not have been allowed to be played out—and
we do not know any other tribunal, save the English
House of Commons, that would have entertained such
a cause, or listened to such a case as Mr. FERRAND
presented. No Judge, sitting in the outer court of
the Queen's Bench, would have suffered the time of
the Court to be occupied for one moment by such a
subject as the High Court of Parliament debated for
three nights.
The present House of Commons, admitted on all
hands to be the most corrupt House that ever assem-
bled in the walls of St. Stephen's—a House in which
are found a greater number of Members whose seats
were procured by bribery and corruption, than in any
Parliament within our memory, and numbering
among its inmates men whose names are now, and
always will be, associated with those of renegade
politicians, convicted bribers, and that race of saints
and sinners with whom the possession of a virtue is
deemed ample atonement for the commission of a
crime, was a fit tribunal to decide upon the conduct
of Mr. FERRAND. And it is saying but little against
Mr. FERRAND, to declare that in such a House he
had no friend—nor much for that House, to say that
it repudiated Mr. FERRAND'S grossness.
Mr. FERRAND we believe to be an honest, en-
thusiastic blockhead ; far better suited to look after
his own pigs, than to legislate for the swinish mul-
titude. He was a fit tool for the Tory craft to work
with, when they wanted to attain some party object.
He was proud of distinction, no matter how gained ;
he was ready to command a fire-ship, or to lead a
forlorn hope—to assault a watchman, or to break a
window. All came alike to him ; and the Tories
used him well—that is, they used him for all their
dirty and dangerous work—and then, why they
used him ill. He was troublesome—he was unma-
nageable—he kept low company—he associated with
OASTLER and others whom the Tories petted when
out of power, but hated when in. And then FEE..
RAND rebelled. Can it be wondered at ? Can flesh
and blood stand GRAHAM'S peevish spleen—PEEL'S
cool scorn—STANLEY'S fiery petulance ? Flesh and
blood cannot do it, in the shape of Mr. FERRAND.
And so he did not and would not stand it. Verily
he has his reward ; so have his late Tory friends, now
his enemies, and more of such they will have; for if
ever party deserved the hate of men of principle, it is
that unprincipled party which now holds the helm of
Government, but has neither honesty, talent, nor
ability to guide it.

The recal of Lord ELLENBOROUGH from India,
which we announced as being under consideration
some weeks back, is, at length, officially stated, and
the next mail to India will carry out the orders for
his return. We presume that Sir JAMES GRAHAM
will be his successor in the Governor-Generalship--a
post which has long been the object of the renegade
Baronet's ambition, and which Lady GRAHAM'S dis-
inclination to quit the shores of England is, We
believe, the only obstacle to his' at once possessing.
All discussion in Parliament, as to the policy of Lord
ELLENBOROUGII'S Government, will be, of course,
suspended until his return ; and, whatever faults may
be charged against his administration, it must be
conceded, on all hands, that the outward and visible
signs of prosperity are more apparent in India now
than when he assumed the reins of Government. Where
the policy of Lord ELLENBOROUGH might have led
the rule of England, and how far such policy
might have been wise and judicious, are
questions that may have puzzled the Court
ca
ofn
Directors and Sir ROBERT PEEL ; but no one
deny that, bating a little absurdity, and allowing for
pomposity and inflation, the ELLEtinolo ruler