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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

Sir J. GRAHAM stated that, after 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 SPEAKER 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
tilt 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
he 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 he could not
forget that ten clays had been suffered to elapse atter 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 members
(and he should not care if they were nominated by Mr.
Ferranti 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'IsRAELe 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. 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. Peel had certainly proposed a course
which would bring back some decorum into the proceed-
ings of the }louse ; but it would be still better to let the
matter drop altogether. Was it to be slid that the house
must erect itself into ft court of honour, wheever a charge
was made by one member.against another? The house
did not so behave when Sir R. Peel charged a rnembtr
with the much graver offence of making a speech that sti.
raulated to aseasfiivation. Out Mr. Ferrand, beiug a man

without a party to back him, bad been baited and hullie,
on all hands. He himsel,l did not sympathize in Mr.
Ferrand's views; on 0-.. c contrary, he had told the hon.
member, that he tought he had a bad cause, and a worse
i-,
tribunal.
Ind_-„ed be could not wonder, that from such a
tribunal Mr. Ferranti had chosen to withdraw himself.
As to t:ne Keighley Union case, he owned he had never
ur,:terstood it ; but nobody could deny that there had been
great many obscure and su•picious 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 Ci own, and
pardonable that he should have held the sort of language
which had been used by him. Surely things must become
to a strange pass, if the House of Commons were compel-
led to interfere on such a matter as the present, fir the

purpose of rescuing this strong, if not very popular mi-
nistry. He bad been much gratified with Sir It. Peel's
precedent of the bottle conjurer • but how far Lord Stan-
ley's speech had been an example of the forbearance and
coneiliation which he 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: be 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 saving 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 cons;stent 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 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. SMYTHE seconded the amendment of Lord J.
Manners. He had no adverse feeling to Sir J. Graham,
whose straightforward conduct he highly eulogised ; and
he considered Mr. Ferrand to labour under as extraordi-
nary hallucinations respecting the character and conduct
of the right bon. baronet as respecting the employment of
machinery. Nor did lie question the integrity of Mr.
Iloge, whom he believed to have been influenced by no
worse motive than an outrageous sense of public virtue.
But he could not concur in a proceeding the object of

which was to compel Mr. Ferrand to prove his belief. No
man in that house lould 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 he the Alexander of Tamworth.
That learned member had now effected a combination of
two remarkable positions—that of the rebel's agent and
the Queen's counsel.
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 for adenial. 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 of
high account; did be 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 HOWICK 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 ; fir 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.
Mr. H U E was surprised at the line of argument taken

by Lord Howick, wbo.se 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 from 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 voiing 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 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.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.
RECALL OF LORD ELLENDOROUGH FROM INDIA.

Mr. MACAULAY rose and said,—l wish to ask the right.
hon. baronet at the head 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 be was actuated by disappoint-
ment at not obtaining office. He had immediately writ-
ten to his constituents a letter, which he 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 baying 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. FERRAND 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.
Duncombe. He must apologise also to the working
classes for taking up, on this evening, any portion of the
time which was due to the approaching 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 bad 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 the orderhe of thld
e
House, whose commands, when justifiable, wou
always obey. The Speaker himself, with all his impar-
tiality and dignity, had felt it difficult to act as a judge of
the court of honour into which the House was consti-
tuting itself. An attempt had even been made to ingraft
on his speech a passage from a leading article of the
iTimes. As a member of this House lie protested. in the
mlee ofthe
People of England, and refused to plead at
their tribunal.