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

entirely correct.—(oh, oh, some cheering, and consi- planation with feelings of disgust. Now here is entirelytl
derable disapprobation.) a separate question. The Hon. Gentleman the Member
Mr. HOGG (with much warmth)—l beg, then, so for Beverley thought it not necessary, and thought it
lemly to declare that it was not my intention to take the would not be superfluous labour, when he presented his
slightest notice of what appeared in that paper, or of report, to explain what he considered to be the law of
what fell from the Hon. Gentleman. I did not act bribery, and how that law applied to particular transac-
solely upon my own impression, or upon my own opinion. tions ; but whether the Hon. Gentleman rightly under •
lam not peculiarly sensitive, for I know that men in stood, or whether he mistook that law, is no question for
public situations of life are liable to have their us to investigate or settle. The question is whether the
conduct made the subject of public comment, Hon. Gentleman acted honestly and conscientiously in
and lam not particularly sensitive when I know the discharge of his duty—a solemn duty imposed upon
the quarter from which imputations come.—(Cheers.) him by the House; or whether he acted corruptly or
I took the opinion of friends upon bath sides of the I perverted the law for the purpose of either injuring an
House, and of gentlemen out of this House, as to the individual or favouring any particular party in this
course I should pursue. They told me that this matter House.—(Cheers.) That must he the question. I have
was unworthy of notice—(Cheers)—and they desired me no hesitation in saying, that neither of these charges can
to take no notice of it, either out of the House or in the .be substantial. I think I remember stating at the time,
House, arid I confess that that advice accord.-d with my with respect to the Hon. Member for Beverley, that I
own impression. Sir, I have been for a long period a ' believed he had conscientiously discharged his duty, and
Member of this House, and elsewhere I have been long that he did as any other man would have done who hail
before the public. I had no anxiety—l hope I did not undertaken the very arduous and responsible duty of
place a presumptuous confidence in my own character— chairman of an election committee. The Hon. Gentleman
but I had no anxiety—and, therefore, I felt satisfied with the Member for Knaresborough must consider that he
the advice given to me, that the observations which'were differed in opinion with the Hon. Member for Beverley,
made by the Hon. Gentleman were not deserving of con- or that a certain feeling was produced as to the aecu-
sideration.—(Cheers.) But it now assumes a very dif racy of the judgment of that Honourable Gentleman.
ferent character. I should disregard what fell from the The question will be the charge against the honour and
Hon. Gentleman when he was itinerating the country, honesty of that Hon. Gentleman. I must say, with the
and vituperating men with wholesale and foul calumny. Hon. Member for Beverley, that such a charge need not
But when he avows before this House—when he states have been noticed in this House; but, having been no
in his place in Parliament, that a sworn officer of this ticed—having become matter of question—let the Hon.
House, in the discharge of his public duty, was influ- Gentleman take what time he pleases, let him look to
enced by a Minister of -the Crown grossly to abandon the weight of his language, and to the effect which it
that public duty (a duty which he was sworn upon oath might be likely to produce; but he is bound to make out
to discharge) for an ill and a foul purpose—sir, it be- his allegations with respect to the integrity of the Right
comes incumbent upon me no longer to treat the matter Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
with indifference or contempt, but to call upon the partment, as a Minister of the Crown; and he is bound
Hon. Gentleman to substantiate his charge.—(Cheers.) to make out the charge against the honour and charac-
Ido not want him to substantiate the charge. I call. ter of the Hon. Member for Beverley, in the discharge
on-that Hon. Gentleman to rise in his place, and leave, of his duty as chairman of an election committee, and
if he can, upon the minds of this House a doubt—or if he cannot make out those charges, he will be shown
leave upon this House the slightest suspicion, that in the to have unjustly calumniated a Member of this House,
discharge of my public duty I was influenced by dis- and to have endeavoured to weaken the opinion of the
honest or dishonourable motives.—(Great cheering.) people as to the honour and integrity of the Members of
If he should raise that doubt—if he should raise that this House.—(Cheers.)

suspicion—let me be covered with well-merited obloquy,
and let me depart this Home as a man no longer worthy
to take his seat, being no longer worthy of confidence.—
(Continued cheering.) But there is another view of the
question. If that Hon. Gentleman cannot raise that
doubt in the minds of this House—if he fail to satisfy
this House as to his grounds for doubting my hone ur
and integrity, then let that Hon. Gentleman be branded
as the asserter of foul and false calumnies—let him stand
convicted as such before this House and before the coun-

Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, I really am sincerely sorry
that the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield
(Mr. Ward), has noticed in the House of Commons some
expressions which I intended to permit to pass over in
silence. But they have been noticed in the House of
Commons, and an importance has thereby been attached
to them. I know perfe,-;tly well what would be the re-
sult if I were now to remain silent with respect to
these expressions. I should be continually told
for the next fortnight, such expressions had been

try, and it will be then for him to consider whether he
is worthy longer to sit in this assembly, or command
respect as a gentleman.—(Continued cheering_) I repeat
my calm declaration, that I had not the slightest
intention of bringing this matter before the house,
but when it was repeated by the Hon. Member in his
place in Parliament, I must of course notice it, and
throw myself not only on this side of the House but on
the other. I appeal to your leclings as gentlemen—
those feelings which, I know, are always responded to.
Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—l
speak in the presence of those gentlemen who are in
the habit of appointing Committees—and I say that I
have never sought to be placed on any Committee in my
life; and I may add, that I never refused to discharge,
to the best of my humble ability, any duty the House
might be pleased to impose upon me. They imposed
on me the arduous—the painful—the sacred—the so-
lemn duty of Chairman of an Election Committee, which
I discharged to the best of my humble ability as their
sworn officer, and I claim from them the right to be
supported. I claim this from them. If lam guilty, I
will willingly submit to the consequence, and I will
submit to be branded with infamy. But I require from
this House protection. If the Hon. Gentlemen cannot
state the grounds for his accusation, or raise a doubt in
the minds of this House, then I claim that he should be
branded in the manner he deserves.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND—When, Sir, I uttered the language
which the Hon. Gentleman has now brought before the
House, I was alluding to the feeling of this House on the
occasion when the Lion Gentleman presented his report,
and I said that when the❑ the Hon. Gentleman did so he
displayed a gopl deal of " haggling."
Mr. HOGG—That is not the part. It is that part in
which you said, the Right Hon. Baronet influenced me to
commit perjury.
Mr. FERRAND—The Hon. Gentleman is, I believe,
labouring under a mistake when he says that I used such
language, I did not say anything of the kind. If the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had given me notice
of his intentio.i to put these questions to me, or if the Hon.
Member for Montrose had done so, I should have had
the newspaper in my hand, and I should have been pre-
pared to have read the language which I uttered. They
have not given me that opportunity, knowing, that as I
had not the newspaper present, it would be a good time
for them to take me at a disadvantage, and they have
done so. When I used the language to which the Hon.
Member for Beverley has referred, I was alluding to the
feeling of this House on the occasion on which he pre-
sented his report; and I said that when the Hon. Mem-
ber for Beverley was " haggling" and " higgling"
through an excuse, those on this side of the House lis-
tened with feelings of disgust. There was but one
Member on this side who cheered, and that Member
was the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department.—(Laughter.) Now I believe
that is as nearly the language I used on that occasion as
possible.—(Cries of" No, no.") Yes; and if I had known
I would have been prepared to read the very words to
the House, and, as I told the Hon. Gentleman, those words
in the leading article to which the Hon. Gentleman has
referred, to the best of my knowledge, are the words I
uttered. But if the House and the Hon. Gentlemen
think proper, I will to-morrow bring down the Times
newspaper with me, and I will be prepared to stand by
those words again to-morrow. I will not retract them,
for the words I used were the result of deliberate obser-

alluded to, and I had not noticed Them. Now I see it
stated, day after day, and I.( ceived with loud cheers, and
expressions of great disgust, that on one occasion, when
retiring from the House of Commons to the lobby, I was
heard to say " that the Christian feeling of the House
of Commons had beaten the Government on the factory
question." I never said one syllable or anything of the
kind. I never said anything which by possibility could
be construed into a foundation for such a statement.
We find generally some foundation for reports, however
absurd and exaggerated they may be ; but I cannot call
to mind anything more likely to form the foundation
for such a statement, than that I, one night, in the lobby,
said, that if the Government took time, and gave an op-
portunity to Members to consider the probable effect of
interference with labour, very likely the Government
vvonld be in a majority.—(Cheers and laughter.) I
never said anything more nearly approaching the ex-
pressions which have been imputed to me than that.
The subject then dropped.
The Committee on the Factories Bill was then post-
poned till Friday.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
Dr. NICHOLL, in moving the second reading of the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, said that although the subject
had been frequently under the consideration of both
Houses of Parliament, and many Bills brought in and
committees appointed to inquire into the best means of
amending the ecclesiastical law since the year 1839, yet
not one of them had been adopted. In that year, on
the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, a select
committee had been appointed to inquire into the matter,
when a report was drawn up, in which considerable al-
terations were recommended, and that the diocesan
courts should only exercise discretion in testamentary
affairs. In the year 1831 a committee was ap-
pointed, which produced a report making similar re-
commendations. In 1833 a committee was appointed
which recommended that these courts should have the
power allowed to them of granting probates, and in 1804
a Bill was brought in which recognised their right of
granting probates, but it was never laid upon the table.
In 1836 another • Bill was brought into the House of
Lord bys, the then Lord Chancellor, but it was set aside,
and referred to a select committee, or, rather, a Com-
mittee appointed to consider a petition presented upon
this subject, and the recommendation was that the dio-
cesan courts should have the power of granting letters
of administration in the case of all sums under 3001.,
and that the heads of these courts should be allowed a
salary not exceeding 5001. a year, and that they should
have certain testamentary jurisdiction. Notwithstand-
ing- all those measures having been introduced so
frequently to Parliament, yet they were fol-
lowed by no practical result. Now many of the
principles of the Bill introduced last year were founded
upon the report of the committee of 1836, and although the
Bill did not get the sanction of the House on the second
reading, yet there were a great many persons by whom
the principles upon which it was tounded were warmly
supported. From the feeling expressed out of doors, it
was determined upon to retain the testamentary power to
diocesan courts; and also to the archbishops' courts, be-
cause it was necessary that there should be an appeal
to those courts, and ultimately to the Crown ; anti also,
because it would be wrong to deprive the bishops'
courts of that power which the diocesan courts possessed.
There were three hundred and thirty courts
throughout the kingdom which possessed testamen-

vation as to what took place when the Hon. Gentleman
explained to the House his proceedings on the Notting-
ham Election Committee. The Hon. Gentleman could
not have forgotten that he felt himself called upon to
explain the proceedings of that Committee. There was
a strong feeling in the country that the Hon. Gentleman
should not hold his peace as to his conduct on this oc-
casion ; and after the report was presented, the Hon.
Gentleman found it necessary to stand up for half an
hour together and attempt to explain the proceedings in
that Committee. lam a public man as well as a Mem-
ber of this House, and I have a right to form an opinion
as to the proceedings of that Committee, or of the mem-
bers who were upon it. I will not hesitate to give my
opinion upon them or upon what I should consider the
public conduct of this House. If this House, or
any friend of mine should tell me that I
used language that was too strong, I will re-
tract it, but I will not be intimidated, as I have been
attempted to be intimidated, by men who have not dared
to meet me on the hustings—(Laughter)—but who are
jealous of the unanimous regard and affection which has
been shown to me by tens of thousands of injured men—
men whom you (pointing to Lord J. Russell) have de-
ceived—yes, and who have cast you off.—(Laughter.)
I will stand to what I have uttered out of this House,
and I will maintain it.

tary jurisdiction. Now, it was proposed to abolish
those courts and establish (with various qualifications
recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners)
in their stead thirty-three other courts. He pro-
posed that a regularly qualified judge should be appoint-
ed to each court, who should be paid by a fixed salary,
that appropriation of the profits or fees of the court
and the practice of the court should be as much as possi-
ble the same as that of the Admiralty Court. He also
proposed to introduce into the Bill a power which would
confer upon those judges the power of summoning wit-
nesses, and of issuing commissions. It was proposed
that the rule of practice in court should be determined
by the Queen in Council, and that the salaries
of the registrars should be fixed and independent of the
fees of the court. With respect to the right of appeal,
there were several provisions made in the Bill, one
of which was, that right of appeal would lie
to the Prerogative Court in London. But if
the parties did not assent and agree to pay the
costs, the causes should remain with the court below.
Thus far he had stated what was intended to be the
practice of those courts ; and if, with these improve-
ments and increased powers, the courts should not prove
as efficient as the public would desire, further improve-
ment could be made with almost universal concurrence.
In both the provinces the diocesan courts and the

Sir R. PEEL rose, but gave way to
Sir J. GRAHAM, who said -Sir, there is no "hag-
gling" or " higgling" here.—(Cheers.) We are in the
British House of Commons ; and the Honourable Gen-
tleman has accused me, as a Minister of the Crown, of
having exerted my influence as a Minister to obtain a
false report for the purpose of crushing him. There shall
be no surprise. He says that I, as a Minister of the
Crown, used my influence with a Member of this House—
Mr. FERRAND—No, I did not say so.
Sir J. GRAHAM—I understood the Hon. Gentleman
to refer to the Hon. Member for Beverley, as Chairman
of a Committee of this House, with whom I used my in-
fluence.

prerogative were superintended by the same judges, and
were attended by the same pleaders, and it was, there-
fore, proposed to unite their jurisdiction, giving compen-
sation to the present holders of the abolished offices. It
was further provided that the registrars of the abolished
courts should send in their registries to the Council,
and that her Majesty should have the power of directing
where the wills and papers should be deposited. The
Bill provided further, that all probates and settlements
under them, which had not yet been contested, should
be declared valid, because in making this change,
and reducing the number of courts from 330 to
33, it was thought advisable to grant, as it were, a
general amnesty. The Bill also proposed that,

Mr. FEHR AND—No, no.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Very well. I will have no sur-
prise. Again, I repeat, that we have no " haggling" or
" higgling" here, but to-morrow I will not appeal to the
generosity or the fairness of the Hon. Gentleman, but
I will appeal to the generosity and the fairness of both
sides of the House, and I expect that to-morrow the
Hon. Gentleman will come down with a specific charge
against me—not only as a Minister of the Crown, but as
im
peaches,
and Member of this House, whose honour he
and whose official character he impugns. I call on him,
or rather I call on the House to compel the Hon. Gen-
tleman, to be specific in his allegations, and I challenge
the Hon. Gentleman to any inquiry before any tribunal
—before any Committee of this House, however consti-
tuted. I will not challenge the name of any Hon. Gen-
tleman who may be placed on that Committee, and I
challenge the Hon. Gentleman to prove any such charge
as that he has brought against me.
Mr. FERRAND—To-morrow I hope the Right Hon.
Baronet will be pressed to explain how he became pos-
sessed of that document which he took out of his box to
use against me.—(Cheers and laughter.) I beg your
pardon, but it is no laughing matter; and I think the in-
terruptions of the Hon. Member for Bath are excessively
unbecoming.—(Renewed laughter.) I again repeat that
I expect that to-morrow the Right Hon. Baronet—
for he is on his trial as well as myself—will be able to
explain to the House in what manner he became pos-
sessed of that report, which he drew out of his box, and
which he used against me almost immediately, if not
immediately, on my resuming my seat in the debate on
the new poor-law.
Mr. HOGG—I hope that I shall be permitted to bring
the report to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred,
and to read that report to the House ; and if it should
not be liable to the imputation which has been cast upon
it by him, I hope the House will call on that lion. Gen-
tleman to disavow that which he has uttered, or to re-
quire him, in any manner you please, either before this
or any other tribunal, to bring his proofs ; and I will be
satisfied, if he should raise a doubt or suspicion as to my
integrity, to submit to the consequences. If on the con-
trary, he should fail to do so, I hope the House will visit
him in the manner he deserves.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL--I do not think that it very
much matters what are the particular words and ex-
pressions which were either used by the Hon. Gentle-
man, or were reported in the Times newspaper. The
question will be whether the Hon. Gentleman can al-
lege, or can give proof in support of such allegation, that
the Right Hon. Gentleman caused, or directed, or pro-
cured, a false report to be made to him for a specific
purpose. It would be beside the question to say that
the Right Hon. Gentleman had received a report in
which some of the facts were inaccurately stated, and
that he used that report, relying upon the authority of
an inspecting officer without having verified the facts.
The question is whether the Right Hon. Gentleman
used his influence with the intention of pr6curing
such a result. Then with regard to the Hon. Member
for Beverley, the Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon.
Member for Beverley had thought it necessary to make
an explanation as to his conduct as chairman of the
committee, and that certain Members of this House—
on a certain side of this House—had listened to that ex-

al order to provide for the better custody and preserva-
tion of those papers, the registrars should periodically
report to the Secretary of State, who should have au-
thority to direct surveys to be made, and such altera-
tions and repairs as from time to time should appear to
him to be necessary. There was also a provision in re-
ference to brawling in churches, which would prevent
the recurrence of vexatious proceedings, such as had
given rise to so much complaint ; and it was further
proposed to abolish all penalties for non-attendance at
divine worship. Marriage licenses were now granted by
peculiar authorities, such as the Dean and Chapters,
&c. but it was intended to confine that power to the
Bishop, to whom it properly belonged, giving him, how-
ever, authority, with the sanction of the Queen in Coun-
cil, to issue commissions giving to persons in certain dis-
tricts the power of granting licenses. He now called on
the House to consider whether this was not a great
measure of improvement, by which nearly three hun-
dred of those courts were got rid of. The Bill had also
received the sanction of the other House of Parliament,
and he had not heard of any objection alleged against it
by the country at large. If the Bill did not carry out
all that he could wish, and all that those who approved
of the Bill of last year would desire to see accomplished,
there was, however, nothing in it to prevent them carry-
ing out further improvements at a future time. He
would earnestly urge upon the House, under these cir-
cumstances, to accept so large a measure of improve-
ment, and not to throw it to the winds in the hope of
getting a better measure at another time. He thought
that all was done that could be done at present with
the concurrence of a large portion of the people. He
concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Sir GEORGE GREY had thought that when the
Right Hon. Gentleman brought this Bill before the
House he would have pointed out the particulars in
which it differed from the Bill which he had before
brought in, and which he recommended to the House in
an able and conclusive speech. That Bill was carried
upon the second reading in the House of Commons, by
a majority of ninety; and he had not heard one word this
evening from the Right Hon. Gentleman to alter or lessen
the impression which was then made upon the House.—
(Hear, hear.) The measure now proposed was totally
inadequate—it departed altogether from the principles of
the Bill which was last year introduced by the Govern-
ment through the Right Hon. Gentleman himself—which
was carried, and in which he (Sir G. Grey) gave his
most cordial support. This Bill abandoned the princi-
ples which had been assented to by the highest ecclesi-
astical authorities, who pronounced these courts to be
nuisances to the Church, and to expose her to enmity and
reproach by their arbitrary and tyrannical proceedings, by
which many families were ruined. He (Sir G. Grey)
would oppose the second reading of this Bill, because he
believed that its effect would be to perpetuate these ob-
noxious courts.--(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
had told the House that this was a great measure of re-
form. Without admitting so much, he would consider
that it was a great advantage to get rid of the peculiars,
and to improve the administration of the remaining
courts. It was also very well to take away the juris-
diction of the courts in case of tithe, of scandal, and of laugh.) But if they created thirty-five—
Dr. NICHOLL--three.-thre.
Sir GEORGE GREY said there were thirty-five in