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

Varliatnnit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNnav, APRIL 22.
Sir J. GRAHAM having proposed to take the second
reading of the Factory Bill at once, and debate the main
question of it on going into committee,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE contended, that the on'y proper
way of dealing eith this bill would be, to refer it to a
select committee. The werking classes did not believe
that the reduction of time would involve a reduction of
wages ; and there ought to be a fair examination of work-
people and masters., that it Might be seen which party
were right. The house was at present but too much dis-
posed to listen to the masters against the workpeople.
Lord Ashley, by agreeingto his present course, had sur-
rendered the whole ca-e. The noble lord now merely
proposed to take a flying shot at the bill when it ea,
leaving the house, after the third reading ; and if that
shot missed, the bill would be gone before he could fire
second barrel. He would himself move, on the order of
the day For going into committee of the whole house, that
the bill should be referred to a select committee above
stairs.
Lord ASHLEY believed that the operatives had quite as
touch knowledge of the subject as Mr. Duncombe, and
was sure they bad ten times as much candour. Now,
they assured him that they entirely approved the course
be was taking.
Mr. FEURAND said, that on the side of the working
classes were truth and justice ; on the side of the mas-
ters, falsehood and injustice. He challenged the masters
to face the operatives at a meeting in the open air.
Mr. ROEBUCK desired to know to whom Mr. Ferrand
had lately alluded when he stated at a public meeting that
a Minister of the Crown had used his influence to induce
a public officer to put forth a false statement for the pur-
pose of crushing a member of the house?
Mr. FERhAND.—If the hon. and learned member for
Bath had shown me the usual etiquette exhibited by hon.
members towards each other, 1 would have come down
to the house pro erly prepared to give him a full explana-
tion. As he has not done so, but adopted that system to
which he usually resorts—that of coming duly prepared
to take an undue advantage of an unprepared member—l
must answer as well as I can. Mr. Ferrand then went
on to say that the minister was Sir James Graham, that
the member was himself, and that the public officer was
Mr. Mott, the poor-law commissioner.
Mr. ROEBUCK.—The question I have put has riot been
answered. The question which I put was, that a minister
of the crown had used his power as a minister to induce
an officer employed by the government to make a false
report. The hon. member for Knaresborough has shown
that the report is false, but the first part of my question
remains still unanswered. That part of the charge that
the right hon. baronet used his power for this purpose
still remains without a reply. That charge, scandalous
as it is, the hon. member has not substantiated.
-Mr. FERRAND.—I have performed my duty to the
house to the best of my ability, and I tell the hon. and
learned member for Bath that he is not going to school
me. He has used language unbecoming him as a member
of this house and as a gentleman. (" Order, order,"
" Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER.—The hon. member must retract the last
words he has used.
Mr. FERRAND.—Certainly, as such, sir, is your deci-
sion. I shall say he has acted in a manner unbecoming
his position as a member of the house. The words I ut-
tered were these—that the right hon. baronet had taken
steps to procure a false report for the purpose of using it in
this house to crush a member of it. Those words 1 used
—those words I do not retract.
Mr. H UME said it was reported also to have been stated
by Mr. Ferrand, that Sir J. Graham had used his official
influence with the chairman of the Nottingham Election
Committee, to warp his decision respecting that election.
Mr. FERRAND declared that he had made no such
charge.
Sir R. PEEL, in reference to a report of his having said
something about a conflict between Christianity and the
Government on the Factory Bill, denied altogether that
be had ever said anything of the kind. What he had said
on the occasion when he was supposed to have uttered
this passige was, that he believed the further reflection
of members was likely to increase the numbers of those
who would support the view of government.
The Factory Bill was then read a second time.
Dr. Nicnote moved the second reading of the Eccle-
siastical Courts Bill, passed by the House of Lords. He
explained that the present measure proposed to abolish a'l
peculiar jurisdictions, thereby getting rid of about 300
courts; but to retain the diocesan courts, and to treat
every place and every benefice as within the archdeaconry.
diocese, and province of its actual locality ; to take away
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of tithe and defama-
tion ; to make certain provisions for the introduction of
viva voce evidence and trial by jury ; and to invest the
ecclesiastical judges with powers of enforcing their own
judgments. The bill proposed also to give compensa-
tions, assessable by the Treasury, to those officers whose
emoluments should have been taken away or greatly re-
duced by these ehanges.
After a short discussion, the bill was read a second
time.

Some desultory conversation followed upon the County
Courts Bill, which was committed pro forma", and the
other orders of the day were then disposed of.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.

The Speaker called upon Mr. FERRAND, who said he
would neither retract nor deny what be bad said iu do
provinces during the Easter recess—to the effect that Sir
James Graham had used his influence, as a minister of
the crown, to induce Mr. Hogg, M.P. for Beverley, to
unseat Mr. Walter, of the Times, by giving his casting
♦ote in committee against that gentleman. The boa.
member, after a very few observations, suddenly sat
down, and immediately aftetw,irds walked out of the
house, amidst loud laughter and cheering from all sides.
Mr. Honn then claimed, not the protection, but the
justice of the house, to adopt some course by which his
honour would be vindicated from Mr. Ferrand's charges.
He was distinctly charged with having acted from impure
motives, and the house should either punish him, or cen-
sure the party who had passed upon him so foul an impu-
tation.
Sir J. GRAHAM was quite satisfied, seeing the manner
in which Mr. Ferrand bad fled from both his accusations,
to leave the matter to the house and the public.
Sir R. PEEL said it was a question for the house to say
whether the matter should be treated with ridicule, or
seriously; if seriously, they should take time for reflec-
tion, lest they should establish a dangerous precedent.
His own opinion of it was, that there was nothing com-
parable to the whole affair since the time when the con-
juror had offered to walk into a quart bottle and then
suddenly disappeared.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as Mr. Hogg had claimed
the protection of the house from the unsupported and
unretracted calumnies of Mr. Ferrand, he was quite wil-
ling to vote the charges false and calumnious.
Lord STANLEY thought there was not an individual
member of the house who did not believe that Mr. Fer-
rand knew, when he made the charges, that they were
utterly incapable of proof. He came there with an air of
boldness, and on the first outbreak of indignation, he
quitted the house without retracting his gross and libel-
lous charges.

The SPEAKER, on being appealed to, advised that all
discussion should be dropped for the present, and in any
subsequent proceedings they ought to adopt the course
pursued in Mr. O'Connell's case.
After a few words from Mr. BLACKSTONE and Sir R.
H. INGLis, the debate was adjourned until Wtdnesday.
Mr. BORTHWICK then rose to move an address to her
Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously
pleased to afford to Parliament, in all matters ecclesias-
tical, the advice and assistance of the clergy in convoca-
tion assembled, according to the constitution and the
ancient usage of the realm. While the hon. member was
yet speaking, however, the house was counted out.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY..

Sir J. GRAHAM stated that, arter consultation with Mr.
Hogg, he considered it his painful duty to lay before the
house the report of Mr. Ferrand's speech, containing
those charges against Mr. Hogg and himself, with respect
to the Nottingham Committee, which had been the sub-
ject of discussion on the two preceding evenings.
The report was then read by the Clerk at the Gable.
The SPIL4,IOEIL asked whether Mr. Ferrand was in his
place ?
No answer being returned,
Sir R. PEEL said he had referred to the modern 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
ha matter should be considered on Friday.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed that it would be proper to
abstain from discussion now.
Mr. T. DoNcomus did not believe there was the least
ground for Mr. Ferrand's accusations : but he could not
forget that ten days had been suffered to elapse after 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 7,!' 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 members
(end 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'lsnsELl disapproved the general tone of Mr.
Ferrand's addresses, but he did not approve the course
which the house was now taking. Mr. Hogg might have
asked 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. Fer-
rand; or Mr. Ilogg 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 B. Peel had certainly proposed a course
which would bring back some decorum into the proceed-
ings of the house ; but it would be still better to let the
matter drop allget her. Was it to be slid that the bonne
must erect itself into a court of honour, is benever a eherge
wac made by one niem')er against another ? Toe I,ouse
did not so b have when Sir R. Peel charged a rnenibtr
with the much graver offence of making a Eqp,e, h twit bti
MUlattid to assassination. But Mr. Ferrand, beili'g a man

without a party to biick him, had been baited and hullie
on all hands. He hunselt did not sympatiize in Mr
Ferrand's views; on the contrary, he had tad the hon.
member, th-t he thought he had a bad cause, and a worse
tribunal. Indeed he ciiukl not wrinder. that fr.( m such a
tribunal Mr. Ferranti hni chosen to withdraw himself.
As to the KeiWev Union as 'he owned he had never
understoul it ; but nobody could dens that these :ial been
a great si any 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 Usev,,is, and
pardonable tint he should have held the suit of language
which had been used by him. Surely things must be come
to a strange pass, if the House of Commons were cemorl-
led to interfere on such a matter as the present, fit the
purpose of rescuing this stromr., if not very popular mi-
nistry. He had been nineh gratified with Sir R. Peel's
precedent of the boi the conjurer; but how far Lord Stan-
ley's speech had been an example of the forbearance and
conciliation which he recommended to Mr. Ferrand, was
another question. Lord Stanley was the Prince Rupert of
the House : his charge was irres'stible; 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 atralnst him fir 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 be consider it consistent with the dignity of
the house that the matter should be suffered to drop.
There was a party in that place who had been accustomed
to cheer all the violenees of Mr. Ferrand, and they were
in great measure the persons responsible for the scrape he
had got into.
Lord .1011 N 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. SMYTHE seconded the amendment of Lord J.
Manners. He had no adverse feeling to Sir J. Graham,
whose straightforward conduct he highly eulogised ; and
lie 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.
Hoge, whom he believed to have been influenced by no
worse motive than an outrageous stnse of public virtue.
But he could not concur in a proceeding the object of
which was t, compel Mr. Ferrand to prove his belie,. No
man in that house i:ould 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 be were not the Diogenes
of Bath, he would like to be the Alexander of Tawworth.
That learned member had now effected a combination of
two remarkable positions—that of the rebel's agent and
the Queen's 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 notic,, surely, if a
member were charged with a robbery, he wanted no no-
tice in order to be prepared for adenial. Was this a mat-
ter to be got rid of by th 3 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 crow❑ 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 of
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.
Lo- d Howicx thought, with Lord J. Manners, that
the house would take the wisest course in suff,ring 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 true 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 ; f,r 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 honour might be at any time attacked.
ti ~aa-ialacd at the nine of argument taken
by Lord Howick, whose suggestion, if pursued in a case
where the characters of two members were thus attacked,
would leave no alternative but Wimbledon Common.
Could the house shrink front the inquiry, after the perti-
nacious way in which Mr. Ferrand had reiterated 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 lett the house.
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 occasion.
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.
The 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.