The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-13 00:00:00

Mr. 1. BORTHWICK moved that it be omitted.
Mr. FERRAND had no doubt that the Government
would be able to carry the clause; he therefore wished
to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet with re-
gard to it. He wished to know what was the meaning
of the word " chargeable ?" If it meant the casual poor,
and would apply to the children of the casual poor, it
would make a great difference compared with the chil-
dren of permanent paupers. There were an immense
number of the poor who were only chargeable once or
twice a-year.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the case put by the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough applied to persons receiving
out-door relief, and it was clear if they gave their con-
rent to their children going to the school, the clause did
include them.
Mr. FERRAND—Did the education cease when the
parents ceased to become chargeable ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, of course, it would, except so
far as they were excluded by the 39th clause.
Mr. HENLEY said he was more:confirmed by this con-
versation in his resolution to vote against the clause.
No provision was made by the Bill for a cler-
gyman of the Established Church having anything
to do with the children, although the next
clause positively prohibited any licensed Dissent-
ing preacher from having access to the school at all
times. There was not one word authorising a clergy-
man of the Church interfering with the children at all,
and it should be remembered, that in many of the unions
there was no chaplain. He should certainly feel it to be
his duty to vote against the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM said there was in this measure
the introduction of no new principle whatever. He had
proved that he was favourable to the appointment of
chaplains by proposing a clause to that effect last year.
He would now give notice that on clause 38 he would
move that every district board should appoint within
the said district at least one chaplain of the
Established Church as one of the paid officers
of such district, who should be empowered to superin-
tend the religious instruction of the infant poor, under
the control of such district board.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause lO7
Against it 1
Majority in favour of the clause —lO6
Mr. WAKLEY gave notice that as soon as the
Speaker should resume the chair, he would call the at-
tention of the House to something which had passed in
the course of debate.
Lord JOHN MANNERS, in relation to the division,
explained that he was the unfortunate person who had
gone out alone into the lobby on the division.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved that the Chairman should
report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Monday,
at twelve o'clock. He proposed that the Committee
should rise at four on Monday.
Mr. FERRAND had given notice of a motion, that
children under seven years of age should not be sepa-
rated frcm their parents, but as it was useless to pro-
pose any motion if the Government were determined to
oppose it, he would, if the Right Hon. Gentleman stated
that he should not agree to it, not take the trouble of
proposing it, as it would be perfectly useless.
The House then resumed, and the CHAIRMAN re-
ported progress.
On the motion that the Committee have leave to sit
again on Monday at Twelve,
Mr. WAKLEY rose and spoke as follows :—I have
been a Member of this House for nine years, and during
that time, I don't recollect that any Hon. Mem-
ber has indulged in any personal insinua-
tion against me. My object has always been
to confine myself to the question before the House, and
never to utter a single word that should give any indi-
vidual pain. I cannot say that always such conduct has
been extended to me. On one occasion only have I
complained; but when matters connected with my pri-
vate life are touched upon—when imputations have
been cast upon me which I believe to be ill-founded—
it is my duty to ask for some explanation. It occurred
to me to make so ne remarks upon the state of education
in the rural districts, I alluded particularly to Norfolk
and Suffolk. I think. I also mentioned Middlesex, so that
I made no invidious distinction. I had no intention,
in the remarks which I made, of reflecting on any Hon.
Member, or on the connexions of any Hon. Member.
—(Cheers.) (The Hon. Member was here considerably
affected, and paused for a minute.) He then continued.
I have had during my life my difficulties to contend with,
I came to this town an unknown man, and had to
fight my own battles.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I
have reared a large family of children. I have
to complain of the remarks which. the Honourable
Member for Norfolk made in reply to my observations.
The language which the Hon. Member for Norfolk used
in the conclusion of his speech was this :—" No one
is more capable to give an opinion on the subject
of incendiarism than the Honourable Member for
Finsbury himself." Now, Sir, it is too hor-
rible to suppose that any one, especially a Mem-
ber of the House, meant directly to accuse me of
incendiarism, and it is horrid to suppose that any
gentleman should do so without being provoked by
any thing I have said. I know, Sir, that every man who
has been engaged in the work of reform, as I have been,
must be prepared for attacks on his public character.
But I was not lrepared to expect an unfair attack on in)
private character.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I never fought
a battle unfairly in my life.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, there
is not an act of my life, from the first moment of my
existence, that I would not court inquiry into.
And if any gentleman desires to go into
the investigation, I will give him every facility in my
power for pursuing the inquiry in the most minute
manner. But, Sir, if I did not dare to ask for an expla-
nation of these words, I could not dare to enter into
this House again.--(Cheers.) Sir, I am quite ready to go
into an inquiry of the matter to which it is possible the
words of the Hon. Member might refer. I have nothing
to fear from the inquiry, but I have everything to fear
from the unanswered imputation, which is the foulest
calumny that ever was cast upon the character of man.
I do not want to make this a matter of private
quarrel, but I have a right to ask the Honourable
Member what meaning he attached to those words
when he applied them to me. And before
I receive the answer, I will state the circumstances
connected with the transaction to which the Hon. Mem

per's observation seemed to apply. I was attacked in
my own house, which was on fire. I brought an action
against the insurance company. Lord Tenterden
was my judge, and every farthing for which
I went against the company was awarded
by the jury, arid was paid to me—(Loud cheers)—
and one of the jurors, who was himself a proprietor in
the company, after the trial, joined my friends, and joined
with them in paying my expenses, as between attorney
and client. That fact was stated in the public newspapers
at the time. Sir, I suffered very much then, and have
since suffered much film the aspersions which have
been cast upon me. I trust that the House will not
think that I have trespassed unnecessarily on its time.--
(Cheers.) I have made this appeal with the greatest pain,
but I do not throw myself on the humanity or considera-
tion of the House but upon its sense of justice—(Hear,
hear, and cheers)—and therefore I call on the Honour-
able Member for Norfolk to state the meaning in
which he used these words—(Hear, hear)—and I ask
him further, for my sake, not to shirk the subject ; but
if he knows anything injurious to my character, to state
it without reservation.—(The Hon. Member sat down
amidst loud cheering.)
Mr. WODEHOUSE said—l rejoice that I have af-
forded the Hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving a
distinct explanation on a subject which has so lung re-
mained in doubt. I have no hesitation in stating that I did
refer to the occurrence upon which the lion. Gentleman
has given the explanation ; and I do feel it to be my
bounden duty to tender him an apology on these
grounds, and on these grounds only. The Right Hon.
Gentleman has stated in the face of the House,

that there was not a single fact connected with that
transaction which has not been brought before a court
of justice, and sati.factorily determined. Having made
this apology, I may be permitted, Sir, to tell the Hon.
Gentleman, and those with whom he acts, and those who

take the same course that he does, that they are too
lavish in accusing landlords and their tenantry of selfish-
ness ; and I take this opportunity of declaring that
these aspersions are such that we are not able to bear

them any lorger. I hope the House is satisfied with
what I have stated.—(Hear, hear.)
The question was then put that the House resolve
itself into a Committee on the Poor-laws on Monday, at
Twelve o'clock.—Agreed to.
The House then adjourned.

BIRMINGHAM ELECTION.
BIRMINGHAM, SATURDAY MORNING.
The polling commenced this morning at eight o'clock,
The following is the result at forty minutes past nine:—
Scholefield 231
Sturge lO4
Spooner

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—The proceedings of the past week in the two
-_oils have been very miscellaneous, and none of them of
marked importance. Progress has been made in important Bills,
the discussion on which offer no lively feature; and on the
other hand, unimportant matters have called forth some consi-
derabie excitement. Mr. Gladstone has secured the carrying of
hip Railways and Joint-stock Companies Bills—the former after
a debate occupying two nights, in which the subject has been
treated with great ability by Members on both sides, and
after contenting to 20Mit material alterations. Further
progress has been made with the Poor-law Bill in Com-
mittee ; and after some oppition to a proposal to meet
again to .day to proceed with the Committee, Sir Ro-
bert Peel made out so alarming a case of probability
that the session might yet last long enough to inter-
fere with grouse-shooting, as at once to silence opposi-
tion ; and the House of Commons is accordingly vigo-
rously at work, as we write, clearing the way for timely en-
joyment of the moors. The Bank Charter Bill has gone through
Committee iu the Lords; and Lord Powis has formally with-
drawn the St. Asaph and Bangor Bill, but not without strong
protests against the conduct of the Government in relation
to the Bill, even from some Peers who had joined with the
Government in opposing it on its merits. The condemna-
tion of Lord Clanricarde, a general opponent of the Go-
vernwent, was not more strong than that of Lord
Mount.edgecumbe, one of their best and trustiest friends.
An opposition of a very unusual character to the Dis
senters' Chapels Bill is threatened to be renewed in the
course of next week, on the question of agreeing to the Com-
mons' amendments; and it appears that Members of the
House of Lords who had previously supported the Bill have
since changed their opinions, runt are to join in this unusual
mode of opposition ; but we rejOiee to know that the opposi-
tion will be fruitless. 4.nd the Bill is Safe,
STANDARD.—We save copied from the Morning Herald
a valuable statement (in continuation) of the comparative
strength of this British lind French navies. The Herald
had previously given th.e statement of the ships of
the line respectively belonging to the two nations.
We entirely concur in the hope expressed by our
morning contemporary, that such a statement will
not be misunderstood as prompted by arrogance, or
by any other motive Cum the wish to satisfy the