The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

Sir J. GRAHAM sta.ed that, after consultation with Mr.
Hogg, he considered it his painful duty to lay bef,re the
house the report of Mr. Ferrand's speech, containing
those charges against Mr. Hogg and himelf, with respect
to the Nottingham Committee, which had been the sub-
ject of discussion on the two preceding evelings.
The report was then read by the Clerk at the Table.
The SPEAKER asked whether Mr. Ferrand was in his
place ?
No answer being returned,

Sir R. PEEL said he had referred to the modem prece-
dents, and his conclusion from them was, that the best
course would be for the house to take this matter into
consideration on Friday next, giving full opportunity of
explanation to Mr. Ferrand, and not taking advantage of
the admission already made by him. Possibly, if Mr.
Ferrand had concluded the speech which he had left un-
finished on the preceding day, he might have said some-
thing to affect the opinion of his hearers. It would be
proper now to order that he should attend in his place on
Friday, and even to give him then the opportunity of at-
tempting, if he should be then desirous of attempting, to
substantiate his charges. He concluded by moving that
be matter should be considered on Friday.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed that it would be proper to
abstain from discussion now.

—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not believe there was the least
groUnd for Mr. Ferrand's accusations : but be could not
forget that ten days had been suffered to elapse alter the
meeting of the house without one word said upon the sub-
ject. Then came Mr. Roebuck's question—" Did you
say so and so of such a person ;" to which question, had
it been asked of him, he would have answered, " What
business is that of yours?" He thought the proper way
would be to appoint a committee of three or five,tnetnbers
(and he should not care if they were nominated by Mr.
Ferrand himself), to which committee he would refer the
speech ; and if that committee should report that there
was no foundation for the charges, Mr. Ferrand, •he
doubted not-, would, as a gentleman, make a proper re-
traction.

Mr. D'ISRAELI disapproved the general tone of Mr.
Ferranti's addresses, but he did not approve the course
which the house was now taking. Mr. Hogg might have
coked some man of sense and temper to apply to Mr.
Ferrand, and the result, he believed, would have been sa-
tisfactory to Mr. Hogg, and not degrading to Mr. Per-
rarid ; or Mr. Hogg might have made his own complaint
to the house. But Mr. Hogg had.done neither ; and then
Mr. Roebuck, who constituted himself public accuser,
put his question, and this without the common courtesy
of a notice. Sir R. Pi-el had certainly proposed a course
Nvh;ch -would bring back some decorum into the proceed-
ings of the house ; but it would be still better to let the
matter drop altogether. Was it to be said that the house
must•erect itself into a court of honour, whenever a ehtrgs
avai made by
one member against another ? Tue house
did not so behave when Sir R. Peel charged a member
with the much graver offence of making a speech that sti_
ululated to assassination, dux Mr. .Ferrand, beiug a man

without a party to back him, had been baited and bullied
on all hands. He himself did not sympathize in Mr.
Ferrand's views; on the contrary, he had told the hon.
member, that he thought he had a bad cause, and a worse
tribunal. Indeed he could not wonder, that from such a
tribunal Mr. Ferrand had chosen to withdraw himself.
As to the Keighley Union case, he owned he had never
understood it ; but nobody could deny that there had been
a great many obscure and suspicious circumstances about
it ; and it was natural enough that Mr. Ferrand's imagi-
tion should have been inflamed when he found himself
engaged in a contest with a Minister of the Crown, and
pardonable th;:t he should have held the sort of language
which had been used by him. Surely things must be come
to a strange pass, if the House of Commons were compel-
led to interfere on such a matter as the present, for the
purpose of rescuing this strong, if not very popular mi-
nistry. He had been much gratified with Sir R. Peel's
precedent of the bottle conjurer; but how far Lord Stan-
ley's speech had been an example of the forbearance and
conciliation which lie recommended to Mr. Ferrand, was
another question. Lord Stanley was the Prince Rupert of
the House: his charge was irresistible; but when he re-
turned to his camp, it was always in possession of the
enemy. It had been truly said that gentlemen, if they
chose to tell lies on the hustings, ought not to tell them
in the house. But he would go further : he thought they
ought not to tell lies even on the hustings. and if a man
chose to declaim against the poor-law there, he ought not
to come hither and vote for it. If any man did this, that
man was guilty of corrupt conduct, and might now move
a censure against him for saying so. He would remind
the Prime Minister of what had been said by a former.
though not greater, Sir Robert, who, when Sacheverell
had been long baited and worried, declared himself tired
of roasting a parson.
Captain BERKELEY did not think the case was one of
which Mr. Hogg could have fitly made a personal quar-
rel ; nor did he consider it consistent with the dignity of
the house that the matter should be suffered to drop.
Ther; was a party in that place who had been accustomed
to cheer all the violences of Mr. Ferrand, and they were
in great measure the persons responsible for the scrape he
had got into.
Lord JOHN MANNERS rose to move the previous ques-
tion. He contended that the speech of Mr. Ferrand did
not convey the sort of imputation upon Mr. Hogg which
it had been assumed to involve. The newspapers might
have given it that construction; but it ought to be judged
of by itself, and not by the constructions of other people.
As to the charge against Sir J. Graham, that right hon.
baronet, who must be the best judge in his own affair, had
declared himself content that the matter should be passed
over.

Mr. S➢EYTEIE seconded the amendment of Lord J.
Manners. He bad no adverse feeling to Sir J. Graham,
whose straightforward conduct he highly eulogised ; and
be considered Mr. Ferrand to labour under as extraordi-
nary hallucinations respecting the character and conduct
of the right hon. baronet as respecting the employment of
machinery. Nor did he question the integrity of Mr.
Hogg, whom he believed to have been influenced by no
worse motive than an outrageous stnse of public v'rtue.
But he could not concur in a proceeding the object of
which was to compel Mr. Ferrand to prove his hetet. No
man in that house eould prove his belief upon any subject
discussed there. Seeing that all this mischief was owing
to the member for Bath, he had himself a belief. though
he could not prove it, that there was some understanding
between purity and power ; for that spurious patriot,
while he attacked all others, spared one great person, and
intimated plainly enough that if he were not the Diogenes
of Bath, he would like to be the Alexander of Tamworth.
' That learned member had now effected a combination of
two remarkable positions—that of the rebel's agent and
the Queens ceunsel.
After a few words from Sir R. Inglis,
Mr. ROEBUCK rose. Mr. Ferrand, he said, had ad-
mitted having used the words ascribed to him; and as to
the complaint that there had been no notice, surely, if a
member were charged with a robbery, he wanted no no-
tice in order to be prepared fora denial. Was this a mat-
ter to be got rid of by the somewhat cowardly expedient
of the previous question ? That meant, that the house
desired to express no opinion whateve-. But ought the
house to express no opinion upon a question whether a
minister of the crown had used h's power to crush one of
its members ? It was the duty of the house to see that no
minister did so use his power ; it was his own duty, as one
of the members of that house, to look to this. The accu-
ser had fled from his own charge ; still the house, in its
courtesy, proposed to give him a further opportunity for
explanation ; and all men would be glad if he should now,
on consideration, candidly retract his words. Lord John
Manners laid claim to feelings of sanctity in matters
high account; did he concur with Mr. D'lsraeli in the
suggestion that this matter ought to have been settled in
what was commonly called a gentlemanly way—an apology
if attainable; if not, then a duel ? Surely, after the late
horrors, it must be felt that such a proceeding would have
been a disgraceful one.
Lord HOWICK thought, with Lord J. Manners, that
the house would take the wisest course in suffering this
subject to drop. The groundlessness of Mr. Ferrand's
accusation, the utter and universal disbelief' of it, formed
the very reason why it might safely be treated with entire
indifference. The t, ue punishment of a member making
those groundless charges was the degradation which he
himself incurred by them. Any ulterior proceeding in
this case would establish a precedent which would there-
after be found extremely embarrassing; for if the house
interfered on behalf of a minister's character, it must in-
terfere in behalf of the character of every individual mem-
ber whose honoui might be at any time attacked.
Mr. HustE was surprised'at the line of argument taken
by Lord Howick, whose suggestion, if pursued in a care
where the characters of two members were thus attacked,
would leave no alternative but Wimbledon Common.
Could the house shrink from the inquiry, after the perti-
nacious way in which Mr. Ferrand had reitera,ed his
charges ? Those who should now vote for the previous
question would be voting a condemnation of the charac-
ters of the two members accused.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he should not vote at all; but ex-
plained that his meaning on a former occasion had been
merely to assert the necessity of inquiry where the attack
of one member upon the honour of another was connected
with the parliamentary character of the accused. He
confessed that he had hiMself, in a long political life, said
and done so many things which he had afterwards been
sorry for, that he did wish to give to Mr. Ferrand the op-
portunity of expressing a similar regret.

Sir J:GRAHAM then left the bou-se.
Mr. HOGG expressed his concurrence in Sir J. Gra-
ham's sentiments.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL recommended it to Lord John
Manners to refrain from pressing his motion to a division
on the present occasiol.

Lord JOHN MANNERS complied with this recommen-
dation; and the consideration of the subject was ad-
journed to Friday, for which day Mr. Ferrand's attend-
ance was ordered.

Ihe other orders of the day were then taken ; but a stop
was put to further business by a member requiring the
house to be counted, and it being found that there were
not forty members present, the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
RECALL OF LORD ELLENDOROUGH FROM INDIA.
Mr. MACAULAY rose and said,—t wish to ask the right.
hon. baronet at the bead of Her Majesty's Government
whether it is true that the Court of Directors of the East
India Company have recalled Lord Ellenborough from
the Government of India ?
Fir R. PEEL.—I beg to state on Wednesday last Her
Majesty's Government received a communication from
the Court of Directors that they had exercised the power
which the law gives them, to recall at their will and plea-
sure the Governor General of India. (Loud cheers from
the opposition benches.)
Mr. MACAULAY.—Under these circumstances, I sup-
pose, I need scarcely say it is not my intention to bring
forward on Tuesday week the motion of which I have
given notice, respecting the occupation of Gwalior. I,
of course, reserve to myself the right to bring the sub-
ject under the notice of the house hereafter.

MR. SMYTHE AND MR. ROEBUCK.
Mr. ROEBUCK, referring to the retort made by him last
Wednesday on Mr. Smythe, (imputing to him, that he
had been actuated by disappointment in not obtaining
office,) read a letter addressed to him by that hon. mem-
ber, calling upon him for a retraction, with a hostile alter-
native; upon which he said to the gentleman who brought
it, " Mr. Smythe shall hear from me in the House of
Commons."
The letter was then read at the table.
Mr. SMYTHE said he received no such message; the
message brought to him being merely, that Mr. Smythe
should hear from him. He had, however, learned from
another quarter, that Mr. Roebuck intended to bring the
matter before the house. Mr. Roebuck had some weeks
ago imputed to him that lie was actuated by i:ii,appolot-
merit at not obtaining office. He had immediately writ-
ten
to his constituents a letter, which be had published,
disclaiming that motive, and assuring them that he had
never even applied for the smallest favour. Nevertheless,
Mr. Roebuck, on Wednesday, had repeated the insinua-
tion. The matter having been brought by Mr. Roebuck,
this evening, in this shape before the house, Mr. Smythe
felt that he had no longer any alternative but to apologize
to the house, for having unintentionally caused them any
trouble.
. Sir R. PEEL suggested that both members should be
called on to give their assurance that this matter should
proceed no further.
•Mr. ROEBUCK had never intended it should proceed
further. •
The SPEAKER called on Mr. Smythe for his assurance.
Mr. SMYTHE was demurring, when the SPEAKER re-
peated_ his • injunction, with which Mr. Smythe then
complied.
The report of Mr. Ferrand's speech having been read at
the table,
Mr. FERRAN') apologised for having been the cause of
wasting the time of the House. Had he not been taken
by surprise on the first night, he would have given to Mr.
Roebuck's question the answer suggested by Mr. T.
the
Duncombe. He must apologise alsoan to theportion of working
classes for taking up, on this evening,
time which was due to the approachi y
ng debate on their
vital interests. He had come down on `Wednesday to
make his statement ; and it was a mistake to suppose that
the rude behaviour of the House had - then driven him
away. He had on that occasion admitted that he had
used every word imputed to him, and he had then left the
House, as he believed was usual, in order that he might
be no check upon their free deliberation. He had now
attended in respectful obedience to tire order of the
House-, whose commands, when justifiable, he would
always obey. The Speaker himself, with all his
impar-
tiality and di•oity, had felt it difficult to act as a judge of
the court of honour into which the House was consti-
tuting itself. Areattempt had even been made to ingraft
Irisnn speech a passage from a leading article of the
nane Times.of Asa member'of this House he paited, in the
the people of England, and refused to plead at
their tribunal.

. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that as he had not recorded the
same denial of the charge against himself which had been
put in by Mr. Hogg with reference to the charge against
him, he would do so now, before he retired from the pre-
sent debate. Wi.h reference to the affair of Mr. Mott,
he had, upon careful search, been wholly unable to find
any trace of any written or 'of any verbal communication
from himself or from the Poor Law Commissioners to
Mr. Mott on the subject of the Keighly union. He re-
peated, therefore, that Mr. Ferrand had made an erro-
neous assertion in saying that he had influenced a com-
missioner to make a false report for the purpose Of
crushing a member, and then dismissed the poor tool of
his fabrications. Mr. Mott's dismissal was owing.to cir-
cumstances quite unconnected with the Keighly union ;
and if a minister had been guilty of such corrupt conduct,
the very consciousness of it would prrbablv have deterred
him from the dismissal of the " tool" employed by him.
With respect to the accusation of having influenced Mr.
Hogg to displace Mr. Walter, he would say that he was
much misunderstood. in being represented to enter-
tain any anxiety for Mr. Walter's removal. But being
thus accused of an undue attempt in this matter, he
claimed from the justice of the house that he might be either
proved guilty or acquitted.
Mr. JAMES WORTLEY was disposed to make some al-
lowance for the surprise upon Mr. Ferrand in Mr. Roe-
buck's sudden question ; and considered that Mr. Fer-
rand's charge did not bear the meaning put upon it. Mr.
Ferrand did not mean that Sir J. Graham had suborned
Mr. Mott to falsify a report, but only that Sir J. Gra-
ham had pressed Mr. Mott for a report, which turned out
to be substantially a fat=e one. Nor did be believe Mr.
Ferrand to have meant that Sir J. Graham had employed
any actual interference in the business.of the Nottingham
Committee.
Mr. FERRAND made no explanation.
Sir R. PEEL was beginning to explain that he had been
no volunteer in these proceedings, when
The SPEAKER called on Mr. Ferrand to withdraw from
the house during the debate, which he did, Mr. Hogg
following.
Sir R. PEEL resumed. His own impression had been,
that the matter was one of which it would be best to take
no notice ; but notice having been taken, it was now for
the house to decide how thy would deal with it. He
could not adopt Mr. Wortley 's construction. He argued
that in both the charges the plain meaning of Mr. Fer-
rand was to convey an imputation of corruption. Were
it otherwise, what could be easier than for Mr. Ferrand
to disclaim that meaning ? The charge against Sir J.
Graham was not like those sometimes made against the
house in general : it was a specific allegation against an
individual. He presumed that the house would think it
expedient now to decide this matter. If Mr. Ferrand had
said he wished for the opportunity to prove his charges,
it might have been expedient to postpone any further pro-
ceeding until after inquiry; but this Mr. Ferrand had de-
dined. He would now, therefore, propose resolutions
purporting that (the two members accused having denied
those charges, and Mr. Ferrand having admitted that he
had used the words ascribed to him) the house is of opinion
that the charges are wholly unfounded and calumnious,
and do not in the slightest degree affect the honour and
character of the accused. As to anything ulterior, he did
not think it necessary to treat Mr. Ferrand's conduct as
a breach of privilege. Enough would be done by resolu-
tion that the charges were unfounded and calumnious, and
for this course there were precedents.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE proposed that Mr. Ferrand should
be called in, and interrogated whether he wished for an
opportunity to substantiate his charges.
Sir R. PEEL observed, that Mr. Ferrand had absolutely
challemed their tribunal.

Mr. F. FRENCH said Mr. Ferrand had disclaimed any
intention of imputing actual corruption. He thought it
not conducive to the dignity of the house that the matter
should go further ; and proposed an amendment of a sati-
rical kind. reflecting on Lord Stanley fur expressions used
by him against his former colleagues, in reference to the
" thimble rig."
This amendment was not seconded ; and Sir IL Peel's
resolutions were adopted.

THE FACTORIES BILL.
On the order of the day for the committee on this bill
being read,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved, that the bill should be re-
ferred to a select committee. He thought the limitation
of the hours of labour, instead of lowering the wages of
the working classes, would tend to raise them. The
working classes now believed that their masters would
indeed make an attempt to lower wages, but that in that
attempt they would not succeed. He cited instances of
limitation of time, which, in fact, had been followed by
no reduction of wager,. But, if the operatives were wrong
in believing that a limitation of time would not reduce
wages, the sooner evidence was taken to disabuse their
minds, the better. He would have the committee confine
its investigation to the effect which the limitation of time
would have upon wages.
M r WARD seconded the resolution.

Sir J. GRAHAM said Rekct committees generally caused
much delay. Be.ides this bill was framed on the recom-
mendation• of a sel,ct committee.

Mr. PALMER (Essex) considered that the importance
of the manufactures carried on for the purpose of foreign
trade was a good deal overstated, and said that the num-
bers so employed did not amount to more than about
400,000 persons.

M r. VILLIERS said that they amounted to near 1,500,000.
What mattered a little delay on a subject of such magni•
tude? There was no hurry about this bill; the masters
did not wish it all, and the workpeople did not wish it
without the ten hours' clause, of which, however, there
was not a chance.

Lord ASHLEY deprecated delay, and entreated Mr.
Dunconibe to withdraw his motion.

After some conversation the house divided, and there
appeared against the select committee, 145; for it, 42.
Ph. t. LL ...:..to of the Whole house.

CLERICAL NEWS.

APPOINTMENTS

The Rev. Richard Ni h:te has been appointed to the in-
cumbency of Wribby-with-Wray, near Kirkham, Lanca-

shire.

The Rev. C. Bellairs to the perpetual curacy of Christ
Church, Coventry.
The Rev. Richard Ellis, M.A., to the perpetual curacy
of Bellerby, Spennithorne, Yorkshire. Patron, J. C.
Cbaytor, Esq.
_ _

The Rev. J. E. Bates, of Liverpool, to be minister of
Christ Choral, Hougham, Dover, the consecration of
which is fixed for the 28th of May.
The Rev. C. Bissett, to the incumbency of Upholland ;
the Rev. E. Pigott, to the living of Longridge ; the
Rev. T. Lamb, to St. Mary's, Preston,

The British government are building a church on the
Isle of Ascension for the use of the residents there.
Mrs. Lawrence, of Studley Park, in addition to former
liberal donations, has just presented a thousand pounds to
the Ripon Diocesan Church Building Society.
TRAWDEN, LANCASHIRE.,-011 Monday, April 15, the
interesting ceremony of laying the foundation stone of St.
Mary's Church took place in the presence of about 3000
persons, including the principal clergy and gentry of the
neighbourhood.
CHESTER CATHEDRAL.—The Marquis of Westmin-
ster has contribu ed the sum of £lO5 towards the fund for
improving t'•e interior of this venerable cathedral. Wil-
braham Egerton. Esq. has also given £5O; Lady Brough•
ton, £2O; and Sir Oswald Mosely, Bart., £2O.
A bill to prohibit the holding of Vestries in Churches,
has been brought into the House of Commons. The law
at present prohibits any adjournment from the vestry to
the body of the church; such adjournment must be to
some secular edifice convenient.

4101 FASHIONS FOR MAY.

(From the " London and l'aris Ladies' Magazine of

Fashion.)

The fashionable colours of the season for dresses, as
well as bonnets and capotes, are pale sky blue, different
shades of green, lapis grey, pale pink, paille raisin and
mauve; the materials are various, but silks are very ge-
neral, the carrieleon being still the favourite; the make of
the corsages will vary with the temperature, high or half
high bodies, but always tight ; the Amazon form continues
in favour; and the embroideries of the season are adapted
to this make ; chicorees. ruches, flounces fontangnes,
and biais gothiques with lace are all in use; the flounces
are sometimes put on quite plain and edg with a narrow
fringe or printed ruche ; single very deep flounces are
edged and headed with plisse of r;bbon ; wide biais half
way up the skirt, and triple rows of narrow velvet are also
used as trimmings. The sleeves are tight, and either long
or half long, or sometimes merely forming jockeys ; the
pinked flounces are not confined to skirts, they also orna-
ment the jockeys of sleeves and form the trimming of
shawls and mantelets, glaree in four colours; as many as
three are sometimes placed on shawls. The principal alte-
ration in mantelets consistsin the size; they are smaller
and should not pass the waist; scarfs, with revers made
of earneleon silk, have trimming of the same forming
ruches hla veille pinked in chicoree; they are also trimmed
with rich lace laid on plain or fulled ; these silks have
rich. ar el
tl
sceom scarfposiesd
ooff
brrawas ol
acf l, very
adnsdo al raer
gvee rays
also a pretty effect when covered by a very clear tartalane ;
alr'eheeil\tll
many
entirely to cover the dress, which, when of light colour,
bas a pretty effect.

Light colours have entirely superseded all others; for
bonnets, jonquil, pale green, and lila. , are those prefer-
red. The ribbons this season are or mixed colours, while
flowers and feath.irs divide favour ; voilettes are worn on
morning bonnets and deep veils with dress ones ; the bon-
nets worn at Longchatnps varied, pailles de riz had flowers
or feathers, some bad the fronts half of lace with bunches
of lilac or lilies of the valley. Fancy straws were either
with shaded feathers, or merely a plaid brocbe ribbon in-
termixed with biais of crape lisse. For morning and
young ladies' wear, the crown of straw or sewed Leghorns
is of silk matching the lining. Many bonnets are made
of crape or tulle, covered by rows of lace ruches, fluted
or quite plain. The new capote Alsacienne is of, straw,
the crown of pink or blue silk with toques of ribbon half
encircling the head, and three biais inside shaded the
colour or the crown ; some ladies add a gauze veil of the
same colour.
Caps which are worn forward on the head are some-
times trimmed with ruches of two colours instead of
flowers. Caps entirely plain on the forehead have a deep
havolet sui.mocnred by a wreath cf flowers or foliage ter-
minating in a bunch at the eiirs. Muslin caps with
in-
lets are lined with blue or pink gauze, and trimmed with
with Valenciennes lace urd a wreath of
lace instead of ribbon : round embroidtied caps are trim-
medwhite satin ribbon ; some are quite plain with lappets
raised cogurs of
a la paysanne, and confined on the top of the head
by a triple row of riblion of two colours.