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

THP, LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, that as he hid not racorded 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. 'Will reference to the affair of Mr. Mott,
he had, upon careful search, been wholly unable to find
a y trace of any written or of any verbal communication
from himself or from the Poor Law Commissioners to
Mr. Mott on the stibi-ct of the Keighly union. He re-
peated, therefore, that Mr. Ferrand hid made an erro-
neous assertion in saying that he had influenced a com-
missi to make a false report for the purpose of
crushing a member, and then dismissed the poor tool of
his fahrications. Mr. Mott's dismissal was owing to cir-
cumstances quite unconnected with the Keighly union;
and if a micister had been guilty of such corrupt conduct,
the very consciousness of it would probably 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 tndue attempt in this matter, be
claimed from the justice of the house that he might beeither
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 he substantially a fat-e one. Nor did be believe Mr.
Ferranti to have meant that Sir J. Graham had employed
any actual interference in the business of the Nottingham
Committee. _

Mr. FERRA ND made no explanation.
Sir R. PEEL was beginning to explain that he had been
no volunteer in these proceedings, when
The SPEAKER Culled 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 ; hut notice having been taken, it was now for
the house to decide how they 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. Ferranti
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 tint!' after inquiry; but this Mr. Ferrand had de-
clined. Ile 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 teere 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
challenged 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 for expressions used
by him against his former colleagues, in reference to the
" thimble rig."
This amendment was not seconded ; and Sir R. Peel's
resolutions were adopted.