The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-07-13 00:00:00

on Friday, the principal actors being Mr. Joseph Hume
and Mr. Spooner. The circumstances out of which it

rose are briefly these

A few nights ago, it may be re-

membered, worthy Joseph had a motion for a committee
to enquire into the case of the Rajah of Sattara, which
was defeated by a majority of 40. The following descrip-
-44,...

-louse as the

,f that

umeat we give trom the condensed report in the Times
of Saturday. A notice having been given by Mr. Spooner
on a previous night, that he had a charge to make against
Mr. Hume. Our contemporary say. !

" air. Spooner developed his cause of complaint against Mr.
Hume, amidst considerable laughter on both sides of the
house. On Tuesday last he had voted against Mr. Hume's
motion respecting the Rajah of Sattara. In the morning sit-
ting of the next day Mr. Hume said to him, ' You voted against
me last night.' He replied that he certainly had. ` Then
said Mr. Hume, I'll bring the conduct of your son before the
house, and I'll do the same with regard to Air. , a rela-
tion of Mr. Hutt, who voted against me too;' and he further
added that there were not more than 13 independent members
in the majority against him. He confessed that at the moment
he (Mr. Spooner) did not know what was the proper line of
conduct to pursue. He asked the advice of members more
experienced than himself; and they advised him to lay the
matter before the house, and to leave it to pass an opinion
thereupon. Mr. Hume's language approached so nearly to in-
timidation, and was so injurious to the independence of the
house, that he could not allow it to pass without notice.
"Mr. Hume, in reply, observed that he did not receive till
5 o'clock Mr. Spooner s note requesting him to be in his place
at 4 o'clock. When he received it he could not imagine what
he had done : but fancied that he must have committed some
violation of Mr. Spooner's Seduction Bill, and that it was to
be brought under the notice of the house. He was now un-
deceived. He then gave his version of the conversation, which
was as follows I see, Mr. Spooner, that you voted against
me last night.' Mr. Spooner replied,—' I did.' I then asked
him, Have you seen the result of the numbers ?' He replied
that he had not. I then said, that out of the 44 who voted
against me, 28 belonged either to the late or present Govern-
ment or to the East India Company ; that, as he and Mr.
Hutt were influenced by having near relatives implicated in
the transaction, there were but 14 independent members who
voted against me, and that, placing them in opposition to the
23 independent members who voted for me, I considered that
1 had carried my motion.' Mr. Hume then told the house that
thereupon Mr. Spooner informed him that the Mr. Spooner
mentioned in the blue book was his son—to which he replied,
very wen 'tice this sow-

-.., IS nail not. _ aject again on Thursday next,
,ieti I shall state how you and Mr. Hutt are connected with
,his subject.' He then complained that Mr. Spooner had been
guilty of a breach of confidence in making this private con-
versation a matter of public discussion, and had acted very
foolishly in making so much of so trifling a matter."

After a few words from Mr. llutt and Mr. G. Bankes,
Mr. Osborne convulsed the House with laughter by calling
upon the honorable gentlemen to pledge their honor that
they would not carry the matter any further ! The idea
of Joseph Hume as a belligerent is irresistibly comic.
Lord John Russell
_next stepped upon t

to excuse

r. Hume in the allowing lseft handed

of iaminarity with the real meaning of the English
language, was in the habit of applying terms, in describing the
conduct of others, which from any other hon. gentleman would
give offence, but which neither caused surprise nor created an-
ger whe' 4 libert: the '-
knew "

utiarrered _ ane as the
Mr. Hume to be. He therefore trusted that Mr. Spooner
and Mr. Hutt would be satisfied with what had just occurred,
for no person of importance either in or out of the house would
pay the smallest attention to the charges preferred by Mr.
ume."

Mr. Aglionby then threw his shield over Joseph, and
condemned the undue severity of his lordship, and Joseph
himself whined a complaint which amounted to " you
did'nt lick your big brother when he kicked me," and the
reporter says,—

" Here the matter dropped; but soon after Mr. Hume crossed
the floor and conversed for some time with Mr. Spooner. At
the end of the conversation both gentlemen were seen to
and the result was a roar of laughter in which both sides of the
house and the two gentlemen themselves heartily joined."

A farcical termination for a farcical scene ! Unfortu_
nately our reformed House of Commons has too often
witnessed such scenes, which, one would imagine, could
only be witnessed in a little boys' school when '• =steel',
out," or on breaking up day.