begged now to put to the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government the question of which he had given notice,—whether they had any official knowledge of a treaty between the United States of America and the German Zollverein, for the mutual admission of articles at lower rates than if imported from Great Britain or other countries. He had been informed that a treaty had been signed on the twenty-third of March last between the representatives of the German Commercial Union, and the minister of the United States, which was founded upon the principle of preferential duties between those two countries. It had been stated to him that under this treaty the duties on American tobacco were to be reduced from five-and-a-half dollars to four dollars —that a low or nominal duty was to be levied on American rice—and that no duty was to be raised on American raw cotton. In return for these concessions to the United States, the American Minister had agreed that linens, silks, merinos, and plate glass, of the manufacture of the German union, should be admitted at fifteen per cent. (the duties levied on the British being from thirty to forty per cent.)—that German hosiery was to be admitted at twenty per cent. (the duty upon British being thirty per cent,)—and on sundry articles of minor importance, a reduction to ten per cent. on German productions is provided for. Certificates of origin were, he understood, in all cases to accompany the shipments, in order to give them the benefit of these preferential duties. He begged, therefore, to inquire of the right hon. Baronet whether he were cognisant of the facts which he had stated, whether these facts were correct, and whether it was the intention of the Government to make any arrangements on the subject in consequence?

said, the statement of the hon. Member was substantially correct. A treaty had been signed between Prussia, acting on the part of the Zollverein, and the representative of the United States, stipulating that certain duties should be reduced. He would not follow the example of the hon. Member, and say that a system of "preferential" duties had been established,— for he did not wish to sanction a new word; indeed, he would take the opportunity of entering a protest against its adoption. He believed the substance of the treaty had been fairly represented by the hon. Gentleman; but he (Sir R. Peel) begged to say that that treaty had not yet been ratified. He believed that, in order to give it effect, it had yet to receive the sanction of the executive Government of the United States, and of two-thirds of the Senate.

believed, that in pursuance of the terms of the treaties between the United States and this country, the United States could not admit the productions of the Germanic League, or indeed of any country, into their dominions on more advantageous terms than those on which the productions or manufactures of this country were admitted. If he were correct in this opinion, any reduction of duties made by the United States in favour of Prussian or German manufactures must be equally advantageous to the manufactures of this country.

said, the Government had already taken this question into their consideration; but as the treaty to which the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) had adverted was not yet ratified, per- haps it would be better for him not to enter into details, but to content himself with stating, that the matter had not escaped attention. There was a treaty in existence between this country and the United States, by which it was stipulated that England should, in matters of trade, be put upon the same footing as the most favoured nation. As hon. Gentlemen were probably aware, there were two kinds of commercial treaties. Under one class of treaties it was agreed by one nation that another should be put on the footing of the most favoured nations, without any equivalent being given; and by another description of treaties it was provided, that a country should be placed on the footing of the most favoured nations, provided she made certain concessions. It was a treaty of the former kind which existed between this country and the United States.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to fees to Magistrates' Clerks. On the 13th of March a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry on this subject was brought forward, but it was withdrawn in consequence of an intimation that the matter was under the consideration of the Government. On the second of April he had put a question on the subject to the Under-Secretary of State in the presence of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham); but the answer given to that inquiry was so vague, that be was induced to suppose it was not the intention of the Government to bring forward any Measure at present. Being at a loss to reconcile these two apparently conflicting statements, he wished now to ask whether any Measure on this subject was in contemplation, and if so, at what period of the Session it was intended to introduce it?

was anxious as far as he possibly could to expedite the transaction of public business. His attention had been directed to the subject to which the noble Lord had referred, and a Bill with reference to it was now in an advanced stage of preparation. There were, however, at this moment a considerable number of important Bills brought forward by Her Majesty's Ministers under the consideration of the House; and it was a matter of some uncertainty when he might be able to introduce the Bill to which he alluded. He hoped to ask leave for its introduction within a fortnight or three weeks.

said, I have during this morning minutely examined into all the speeches which I made in the manufacturing districts during the Easter recess, and which have been published in the Times newspaper. I have paid particular attention to the leading articles of the Times, in which were certain extracts from speeches of mine, which were said to bear on the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the learned Member for Beverley. It is not my intention to retract one syllable which I used in those speeches, nor to extenuate or explain away a single sentence. When I made use of that language, I asserted the sacred prerogative of a free-born Englishman, and I expressed my opinion upon the public conduct of two public Officers. Sir, I defy this House to deprive me of that privilege. The opinion which I formed of the conduct of those two public Officers is supported by the public press of the country, and is backed by public opinion. But if, in making use of those expressions, I have in any way wounded the personal honour of any Member of this House [Interruption. Cheers.]—Sir, the party spirit and unmanly bearing which were exhibited towards me last night, and which have burst forth now, convince me, and must convince hon. Gentlemen—and I am sure my opinion will be backed by that of Englishmen at large,—that this House is the last tribunal for them or for me to appeal to. [The hon. Gentleman, who had been sitting on the second Bench on the Ministerial side, here took up his hat, and, walking down the centre of the House, bowed to the Speaker, and made his exit by the door under the strangers' gallery. A dead silence which pervaded the House for a few moments was followed by laughter, and continued with considerable confusion for some sime. Mr. Borthwick and Mr. Roebuck both rose to address the House, but the former was unable to obtain a hearing.]

proceeded to say—I rise to order. I am sure the House, Sir, must have understood from what passed last night, and from the transactions of last night, that a most serious charge was made before this House against a Minister of the Crown. However ridiculous may have been the upshot of the whole matter—

rose to order. The hon. Member for Evesham is in possession of the House. I think the hon. Member for Bath is not in order.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should call me to order, inasmuch as I have not yet uttered a single sentence.

The hon. Gentleman has put a question to me which does not relate to the forms of the House, and one to which it is quite obvious that I ought not to give an answer, as it is a matter for the House and not for me to decide.

; I was about to explain, that a very curious circumstance occurred last night, which induced me to believe that a matter of privilege was coming before the House. An hon. Member has risen and made some sort of statement— whether it were an explanation or not I will not pretend to say— in consequence of the proceedings of last night. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you think, after what took place last night, and the sort of defence which the hon. Member for Knaresborough has this evening made, it is becoming and fitting for this House to allow the transactions of last night to pass over in the manner in which it has been treated by the hon. Member? If you do not think so, I am prepared to make a Motion.

The hon. Member for Evesham was certainly in possession of the House when the hon. Member for Bath rose to order, but the House has not yet heard the point of order to which the hon. Member wishes its attention to be called.

The question on the point of order which has been started by the hon. Gentleman opposite—["Order, order," and confusion.] I merely wish to explain. I wish to state that I think, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman or any other hon. Member wishes to continue this discussion, which originated last night, they had better give notice of a formal Motion upon the subject. I cannot see how it is consistent with the Orders of the House that such a Question as this can be brought into discussion at the present moment. Is it a Question of Privilege or not?

said, I think I may claim the indulgence of the House. I hope I am not going too far when I say, that the present question is strictly a matter of privilege. I waited to see what course would be pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department against whom an imputation had been cast. But I, perhaps, have still more a right to claim, not the protection, but the justice of the House, because I am their own sworn officer. I am left in a situation of some difficulty as the House may well understand as to the mode of proceeding in the absence of the hon. Member, after the extraordinary declaration he has made. I hold in my hand the speech delivered by the hon. Member, which last night he admitted, and I will read that speech shortly to the House, and will endeavour to impress upon the minds of hon. Members its obvious meaning. I admit the right of that hon. Gentleman to comment as boldly as he pleases upon my conduct, I will allow him to dispute the correctness of my decisions, I will allow him to say, that my deductions from the evidence were wrong, and that the law which we acted upon was wrong: but if it be the opinion of the House, that he has cast upon me the imputation of having been influenced by a Minister of the Crown in the exercise of my sacred duty as Chairman of a Committee appointed by this House—if that is the obvious meaning and purport of the hon. Member's speech, then I do hope that there is but one course that this House will pursue; I hope you will take the pains of ascertaining that your officers have not been guilty of such infamous conduct. I hope, if it be found that they have been guilty, you will visit them with merited punishment. But I also hope, that if your servants have not been guilty, you will call upon the man who has stood up in this House and made the charge, to substantiate it. I am not sufficiently versed in the forms of this House to know what course to pursue; but I do fling myself upon the House, and appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, and who leads this House on the Ministerial side, and I also claim the protection of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who is ever anxious that justice should be done to every man, no matter to what party he may belong. I claim from them to initiate some proceeding by which the opinion of this House may be expressed. If I were asked myself to suggest any mode, it would be, that the House should declare, by resolution, that the charges brought forward were false and libellous. The newspaper in introducing the extract from the hon. Members speech gave it with these words:—

"To one of that right hon. Gentleman's delinquencies, Mr. Ferrand alluded, after his usual plain spoken fashion, in words which will carry with them the sympathies of all opponents of the Poor Law. After some animadversions on his general conduct with respect to the law, he proceeds" (and then in inverted commas comes the hon. Member's speech). "'That is not all Sir James Graham has done of late for the purpose of putting down the advocates of the poor in the House of Commons. You will remember that Mr. Waiter was returned for Nottingham, and I have had the honour of battling by that Gentleman's side the enemies of the poor. No man has resisted the Poor Law more vigorously or at greater sacrifice of time and money than Mr. Walter. It was therefore felt necessary by Sir J. Graham to get him out of the House of Commons, for Sir James was a man who could not bear to hear the truth spoken, especially on that subject. A petition was presented against Mr. Walter's return. They could only prove that his friends— not his agents— had spent between 30l. and 40l. in money and what they called treating. The Committee was divided — three Whigs for throwing him out, three Tories for keeping him in. Mr. Hogg, the Member for Beverley—one of the most pure boroughs in the kingdom, forsooth [loud laughter], whether he got his seat for 40/. I do not know— but this Tory Chairman aided Sir James Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter. Mr. Hogg tried to explain away his conduct on that occasion; the whole of the Government side of the House on which I sat listened with feelings of disgust while he haggled and haggled through his explanation, but there was one man who vociferously cheered, and that one man was Sir J. Graham."

Now, Sir, is there any human being who can read that article without being impressed with this feeling—that it is not merely an implied hut a distinct charge against me of being influenced by Sir James Graham and the Government basely to forego my duty and to give a verdict for the purpose of excluding from this House, a Member not acceptable to them? In a court of justice, when we seek the obvious meaning of a libel, we ask any man of plain understanding what is the ordinary acceptation of its terms. I ask you to look at this journal itself—to examine its comments on this imputation upon me—and then I ask any Gentleman who has heard me read the extract if he can have any doubt that the imputation cast on me is that of having been influenced by the basest and most dishonourable motives— and that I had been made the instrument of Sir James Graham in unseating Mr. Walter from his place in this House. I ask if any Gentleman can have any doubt on the subject? I do not complain of the terms in which my decision has been spoken of. My "higgling and haggling" has been dwelt upon, my determination has been dwelt upon, but of this I do not complain. The subject was properly treated by the noble Lord the Member for London last night, when he said that whether my deductions were right or wrong—whether my law was good or bad, this is nothing to the purpose—whether my explanation was satisfactory or not was nothing to the purpose, I allow every one to form his opinion on these points, and to express that opinion as he pleases. I confine myself to the one point which imputes to me impure and dishonourable motives. I confine myself to that as the single point. It is vain for this House to talk of keeping its jurisdiction to itself and of not resorting to another tribunal, and of securing to itself the confidence of the public and the combined power of a judicial and legislative authority, if the House itself should allow its own sworn officers to be thus assailed. I hope that those who are more conversant with the forms of this House than myself will kindly suggest what is the proper course which ought to be adopted. I have already stated what my idea is. I pledge my honour that I have not made a single appeal to any one below me [the hon. Gentleman stood immediately behind the Ministerial Bench] on the subject. The long standing of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) in the House and before the public, and also his high and exalted position, might enable him to treat in this House with indifference that which I could not consistently with my duty pass by; and, as the sworn officer of this House, I think I have a still stronger right to request and demand of it, not protection, but justice, than even the right hon. Baronet himself. I appeal to the House whether these are imputations made on my honour and integrity in the discharge of my duty, and, if they are, I call on the person making them to substantiate those charges, and here I am to meet them. If I have done anything to raise a doubt or create suspicion as to the honourable execution of my duty, I shall be satisfied to meet the consequences; but if no man can state any grounds that would raise any such suspicions or doubts in the minds of honourable men, then I have a right to the protection of the House, and I hope it will be afforded to me. If I am asked how that is to be done, I answer by declaring that I have acted honourably in the discharge of the public duty imposed upon me by the House, and call upon it to stigmatise those who have cast the imputation upon me. Perhaps I ought to apologise for referring to the subject;—but no; I feel I need not apologise. Let the House, however, bear in mind that I did not bring this matter forward. I had not the slightest idea of noticing it; but when it was noticed in this House, my personal honour required that it should not pass unanswered by me. I almost feel I ought to apologise for calling attention to what is stated in one public Journal of to-day. There is a base insinuation in the Times Journal of to-day, that while the Committee, of which I was Chairman, was sitting, I looked for some official office or employment from the Government. I ought to apologise to the House for stating it—and this is an additional reason why the House should not pass this matter by. I labour under a feeling of humiliation in alluding to such a charge; but I declare solemnly, on my honour, that never, either directly or indirectly, from any Member of the Government, or any person connected with the Government, have I obtained, or asked, or sought, or applied for, any office or employment for myself, or any human being belonging to me. This insinuation is as base and falseas the other, and with the exception of sending an application to my hon. Friend for the situation of a gauger, hacked by representations from the place I represent, with that exception, I never asked for place or emolument for myself from any Government past or present. I ought to apologise to the House for this; but when these calumnies are sent into the world, and circulated by a Journal which is extensively read, and which ought to be above making such imputations, I thought it was perhaps as well for me to declare indignantly that they are false and unfounded.

The House will bear in mind, that at the very moment I imagined the hon. Member for Knaresborough had resumed his seat, I rose for the purpose of addressing you; and, Sir, I must remark, after what his fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg) that in this House we are all equal. I consider there is no distinction amongus;no preeminent claim to confidence or respect. We are all honourable men—enjoying the highest privilege which, in a free country, can be conferred on any Gentleman —that of being chosen by a free people as their Representatives in this Assembly. I conceive that when the honour of a Member of this House is assailed, in his discharge of his duties as a Member, the honour of the House itself is in jeopardy; and that it is not the duty of the individual Member to vindicate his character, and to resent the insult; but that it is the duty of the House to ascertain whether the stain cast on the honour of one of its Member be well-founded or not. And if it should be the opinion of the House, that the charge is well-founded, it is their duty to expel the Member guilty of dishonourable conduct, in order that the honour of the House may remain unstained. The House will remember, that last night I waived my Motion that the words of the hon. Member for Knaresborough be taken down. I waived it because it was impossible that an accusation so substantial and short should be forgotten. As it related to me, and as limited to myself, it was this—that I had used my official power for the purpose of obtaining a false Report, in order to crush a Member. When I waived my right yesterday, I said that the charge having been deliberately preferred, it was proper that the hon. Member should have time until to-day to settle the mode in which he would substantiate it. On the same occasion I referred to another accusation, in which the hon. Member for Beverley was implicated with me; on the precise terms of that second accusation, the hon. Member for Knaresborough and myself could not agree: a report of the speech of the hon. Member was inserted in the Times newspaper, and I understood that he would come down to-day prepared to put his charge in a substantive form, and to add, as I imagined, that charge to the former, and to state the mode in which he would proceed. I fully expected that when the hon. Member for Knaresborough rose this evening he had come down prepared to give effect to the intention which he was understood formally to have announced last night. When I rose to address the House, I certainly was about to comment on the extraordinary omission of the first and most substantial charge—that relating to myself. I was also about to comment on the fact, that he had forgotten what it was he understood he had promised, viz., that with regard to the hon. Member for Beverley, the hon. Member for Knaresborough would put into a clear and tangible form the charge in which we were both involved, and would point out the mode in which he would take the opinion of the House in the affirmative or in the negative. I turned round, however, and perceived that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had left his place. From that fact I instantly inferred that he had run away from both his charges—declaring that he was unwilling to appeal to this Assembly, to which alone, as Members, we with propriety can appeal, and refusing to join issue here, the only place where the question can be tried. Since the hon. Member has run away from his charge, not daring to go to the proof, I, for one, am perfectly satisfied to leave the matter where it stands. The House and the public will be able to determine between us; and as one of the parties accused, it is not, perhaps, my business to offer an opinion respecting the course, which the House ought to adopt. It will be for the House to decide what it will become its own dignity and honour to do on the occasion.

The question is, whether this House can treat the matter with indifference and ridicule, or whether it ought to adopt any proceeding. If any proceeding be adopted, I strongly advise that some interval of time should be allowed to elapse. Ridiculous as the charge may be, and unanimous as is the feeling that the charges are utterly without foundation, after the declaration made by the hon. Member, if they could have been supported they would have been supported; but still, in an arena for perfectly free discussion, where we permit, the acts of public men and authorities to be questioned, we cannot adopt any proceeding to vindicate the parties accused, or to censure the accuser, without establishing a very important precedent. Therefore, it is most material, before we come to any decision, that we should look back to such records as are within our reach, to ascertain what course the House has taken under any analogous circumstances. The House will bear in mind the species of charge preferred—that it is against a public Officer, and that it implies great misconduct—dishonourable conduct. If it were brought forward by a minority, nothing could be more easy than for a ma- jority to brand the accuser and to acquit the accused, and a precedent is therefore important lest the power of party be abused. Considering the great Constitutional Question involved of perfectly free discussion—considering, too, that all objections to precedents originate in some exceptional cases—the course I suggest appears the more necessary. Looking abstractedly at the individual case, your feelings of indignation may prompt you to adopt some sudden course which you will afterwards regret; and, adverting to all these considerations, my advice may perhaps be taken, in order to prevent surprise, to adjourn the present discussion, and to give us all in our individual capacities the means of learning what has been done in past times, and of deliberating what ought to be done in the present instance. I will venture to say that, since the time when a public performer undertook to compress himself into a quart bottle, no audience has ever sustained a greater disappointment than the present. Lord J. Russell: I have no objection to an adjournment; on the contrary, I agree that it is desirable in all cases of this kind that an interval should occur between the first impression and the ultimate resolution. At the same time I have no hesitation, though I think it may be useful to others, to give them an opportunity of turning their minds to the consideration of what may be the better course, in stating at once what I feel upon the subject. It was to be expected that the hon. Member for Knaresborough would to-day either have made or retracted his charge. He has taken neither course— he has fled from the accusation without abandoning what he formerly stated. I think that the hon. Member for Beverley, in that state of things, very naturally asks the House to interpose. I understood him most distinctly to ask the House to interpose after the statement it had heard, and he added most truly, that he was not the person who had brought the subject forward. So far as depended upon him, the charge might have rested where it was, but having been brought forward, he could not be satisfied without calling upon the House to pronounce an opinion. I think his demand a most just one. He stands in an important position. Not only he, but every Member who has filled the responsible situation of Chairman of an Election Committee, is involved in the Question whether you will not think it necessary to protect the honourable Member for Beverley from charges thus lightly made, and apparently but not honestly abandoned. As to the hon. Member, I think the course to be pursued does not admit of much difficulty; he read from a newspaper an extract of the Speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and we heard that hon. Member state that that report of his Speech was correct. With deference to the opinion of other Members, and especially to you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Beverley were, to-morrow, to put in the newspaper, and the passage were to be read, the House might then come to a Resolution, stating that a Member of the House, naming Mr. Ferrand, had avowed himself the author of the Speech—the Resolution might then proceed to state that the House was perfectly satisfied that the charge against the hon. Member was false and calumnious. I am prepared to take that course. If there be any Member who thinks that there can be a doubt upon the subject—if any body supposes for a moment that the hon. Member for Beverley, in the discharge of his duty as Chairman of an Election Committee took into consideration what might be desirable or convenient to a Minister of the Crown—if he imagines that on that account the hon. Member perverted the evidence, or biassed the decision, let that man propose an inquiry. For myself, I have not the most remote suspicion of the kind; but I think that the assertion of that opinion, and the contradiction of that charge by a resolution, is due to the hon. Member, and due to the character of the House. The case of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) is so far different, that he does not ask for the opinion of the House. I do not understand him to say, that he thinks it necessary, that any decision should be declared on his case by the House; but my opinion is, that after the matter has been publicly stated, imputing to a Minister of the Crown that he procured a false Report to be made by an officer under his control, it is fit that the House should pronounce upon the utter groundlessness of the accusation. In what manner it is to be brought before the House, the right hon. Gentleman, making no complaint, is a matter for consideration, but I think, that some resolution of the kind is necessary. On some former occasions, I have thought it needless for the House to interpose in a complaint against the conduct of a Member, since it would only be irritating and vexatious. The last case of the kind was that of Mr. O'Connell, who threw out an imputation, that Members serving on Election Committees generally were guilty of perjury. I thought it unbecoming in the House to notice it, but it decided otherwise, and we have therefore a precedent. I must say, that a general charge, against the House, or against the Members of Election Committees is not nearly so important as a particular charge, a specific accusation against an individual Member, whether holding office under the Crown or entrusted with responsible duties. I am afraid, if we say, on the one hand, that it is unadvisable to enter into imputations against the conduct of Members, and if, on the other hand, we are content to pass over a charge made and avowed, we should render ourselves liable to the accusation of indifference to the character of the House. Having thus stated my own impressions, I may add that the safer course seems to be to pause until to-morrow, but I am quite ready to listen to a better opinion, and, for the sake possibly, of arriving at it, I concur in the proposal of adjournment.

I fully concur with my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and with the noble Lord who has just sat down, in the propriety of the House not taking any particular course without some interval of time for reflection, for I believe there will be found no case in the records of Parliament which can fairly be considered and looked upon as a precedent for our proceedings at present. I do not believe that with regard to the groundlessness of the charges made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, both against my right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beverley, there exists the slightest difference, or even the slightest shade of difference, of opinion on either side of the House. I do believe that there is not a man here who does not feel confident that the charges are wholly and absolutely incapable of proof. Nay, more, that at the time the charges were made, the hon. Member who made them had not the smallest ground for believing that those charges and accusations were true. This being the case, a Member of this House repeating those calumnious charges in his place is challenged to the proof of those charges, and with an appearance of boldness, the hon. Member came down to the House on the following day, pledged, as far as the House could pledge him, to substantiate those charges in the presence of that tribunal to which the accused parties had appealed, and at which the hon. Member was himself bound to attend. On this second appearance, when the accused were ready to meet him—when the tribunal was assembled, what course did the hon. Member take? Why, on the very first appearance of natural feelings of indignation being excited on both sides of the House, he demurs to the authority of the tribunal—he states that this assembly is not one to which he will appeal or which is qualified to judge of the propriety of his conduct (it is an assembly, between which and the hon. Member there is no sympathy)—and not only does he decline to submit it to the jurisdiction of the House, but withdraws from the House before the accused are heard, and before the House has expressed any dissent to those gross and libellous calumnies. In this case, then, what course ought to be pursued? I differ from the views expressed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. The noble Lord has drawn a distinction between the case of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department, and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beverley, and the noble Lord states that my hon. and learned Friend has appealed to the justice and for the protection of the' House, but that my right hon. Friend has not thought it necessary to do so. Now, with all deference to the noble Lord, I am sure upon reflection, he will think that this is not a question to be judged of by the fact that one party accused appeals for protection, and the other does not appeal. It is not a question to be judged of by the individual feelings of the Members charged; one may view the accusation with feelings of indignation, the other may regard it with perfect contempt, and it is for the House to consider with a view to its own character and honour, both of which have been assaulted and assailed in the persons of the one Member and the other, it is for the House to state what course it will take in vindication of its own honour and character. But I am quite sure the noble Lord—

I beg to explain. What I stated was, that some difference will be necessary in the form in which any thing shall be done in the two cases. I said the form in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley was, that he should put in the newspaper containing the report of the speech in question, which has been admitted by the hon. Member for Knaresborough to be correct, just as if the complaint was made against that newspaper, and that then it would be for the House to found some steps upon it; but I added, that in respect to the case of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, as he had declared himself to be perfectly satisfied at present, the proceeding would be different in form, but in substance the same.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has afforded; but still I wish to remark, that if the House were to take no notice of the charge made against one of its Members while it did take notice of the charge made against another of its Members — although the circumstances in each case are different—the one claiming, the other not claiming, the protection of the House—the circumstance that one charge was noticed and the other not noticed would, in point of fact, give some colour of foundation to the calumnious charge of which no notice was taken. I do not suggest to the House what course it ought to pursue further than to say that some interval of time ought to be given for reflection upon the matter. After that reflection it will be for the House to decide upon the further proceedings it may think necessary. At present I will only say, that I am confident the House will feel bound to take the same course in both cases—the charges having been brought by the same individual before the same assembly.

I only wish to observe, that I did not propose a different course to be taken. I expressly stated, that the House ought to come to some resolution in both cases.

rose, but—

said there was no question before the House, and it seemed to be the general opinion that the subject should be postponed until to-morrow. He recommended the House in the commencement of its proceedings to follow the precedent in the case of Mr. O'Connell of 1833. Tomorrow the paper would be read by the Clerk at the Table, and the admission of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, that the words which formed the subject matter of complaint were certainly spoken by him, would be taken in a formal manner. It would then be for the House to consider what step it would next take.

I only wish to trouble the House with one or two remarks. I rejoice to have heard what has fallen from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London on the present occasion, because I had a foul and calumnious charge made against me as Chairman of the Shaftesbury Election Committee, and on that occasion the foul and calumnious insinuations cast upon my conduct as Chairman of that Committee were shielded by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. On that occasion, however, I had the support of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire and of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord, and every Member opposite who now cheered so loudly, were then found covering the accusations and imputations cast upon me. I strongly recommend hon. Members to refer back during the interval proposed to the proceedings with reference to the Shaftesbury Election Committee in the year 1838.

I can only repeat the advice I have already given to the House, namely, that some interval of time should be allowed to enable hon. Members to look to what was done in similar circumstances on former occasions. If hon. Members are allowed time to look at the cases to which my hon. Friends have referred, the House will be better able then to decide upon the proceedings to be taken in this instance.

expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), and thought it would be wiser and better to abstain from any further discussion until tomorrow.

Further discussion postponed.

was then called upon by the Speaker to move, pursuant to his notice,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to afford to Parliament, in all matters ecclesiastical, the advice and assistance of the Clergy in Convocation assembled, according to the constitution and ancient usage of the realm."

The hon. Member said, that it was with unaffected solicitude that he appealed to the House for its indulgence and forbearance on the present occasion. The circumstances under which he rose to address the House added very much to the difficulties which naturally surrounded the very important matter he was about to propose to its consideration. He trusted, however, that the good feeling of the House would grant him its indulgence, and he promised he should not trespass upon it in point of time, and that he would sedulously endeavour not to offend the House, either by any expressions he might use or otherwise. He was aware of the great excitement which had attended the discussion which had just terminated; but he hoped to be permitted to proceed, and claim for the subject that full consideration and attention which it merited. He hoped he should not offend hon. Members if he said he believed the very large majority of the House he was now addressing knew very little except in name of the institutions to which he was about to advert. He must premise by stating, that the question he had to propound was not of a theological character; if it Were, another place would have been more proper for its introduction, and a different person selected for its advocate. Perhaps the House would permit him to state what was a Convocation of Clergy, what its character, what its uses, and wherefore it was that he asked an address to the Crown praying its restoration. On the original introduction of Christianity into this country, the Bishops from time to time collected around them the Clergy of their respective dioceses, for the purpose of consulting upon the affairs of the Church. In this synod were discussed all matters connected with the order and discipline of the Church, and everything calculated to increase her efficiency. In process of time the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in this Kingdom became divided into the two provinces of Canterbury and York, and then that which previously had been done by each Bishop in his own diocese was done by each Archbishop in his respective province. Shortly after that period the Crown had been in the habit of applying to the Convocations for the purpose of obtaining the Supplies which the Clergy afforded to the public service of the country, and the Clergy having the privilege of self-taxation attended the Convocation to supply the Crown with Revenue. In the year 1664, Archbishop Sheldon, on the part of the Church, and the then Lord Chancellor on the part of the State, concluded an agreement by which the Clergy waved all right to their privilege of self-taxation, and from that time to the present they had been taxed by Parliament from year to year just as any other citizens. Now, from the time when they surrendered the privilege of self-taxation down to the present, there had been a singular want of care on the part of the State in calling together this most constitutional body. Nevertheless it continued to be called, and to discharge the high functions intrusted to it by the Constitution down to the year 1717; and then, when a sermon bad been preached by Bishop Hoadley, in which doctrines of a dangerous tendency were promulgated, a Committee of the lower House of Convocation having been appointed to take the matter of the sermon into consideration, the Whig Ministry of George I., in order to shield Bishop Hoadley, their favourite both on personal and public grounds, prorogued the Convocation for six months, and from that time the Convocation had never been assembled. In short, it expired when in defence of the Church, and in the discharge of an important duty, for which it merited thanks rather than extinction; and one of its last acts had been an effort by which fifty-two churches had been built in London and its neighbourhood, thereby showing that it carefully watched the growing wants of the people, and that it used all proper means to supply those wants as they arose. Having glanced thus very briefly at the English Convocations of Clergy, he would add, that it was a Council of the Church—it was a Council within which all matters Ecclesiastical were by the Constitution of the Country supposed to be considered—it was a part of the institutions of the country as important as any which existed. All writers on the Constitution agreed in assigning to it a character not second in importance and utility to Parliament itself, and he could bring forward a great number of proofs to show that at the time the House of Commons was sacrificing the rights and liber- ties of the people, when it was wantonly betraying its trusts to place a tyrant in power, when it was staining the land with the blood of kings and martyrs, the Convocation of Clergy steadily proceeded to do a series of acts, without which, he hesitated not to say, the liberties of England must have perished, and the Constitution of this Realm have been sacrificed to tyranny. If any man was disposed to doubt this, let them look back to the time of Henry VIII., when the Reformation took body and shape. The Rev. H. Thompson, in a pamphlet just issued, remarked, that the Convocation had been a positive benefit to the Church was incontrovertible; that it had saved the country from the heresies and follies which defaced the Reformation in other countries, and that every act of the reign of Henry VIII., where the Sovereign and Parliament were concerned, supplied the Romanists with an inexhaustible armoury of weapons, and that it was only from the proceedings of the Convocation in those times that the means of defence were to be obtained. In his (Mr. Borthwick's) opinion it deserved to be considered, whether, as regarded the efficiency of the Church or the advantage of the State, it would not be better to restore the Convocation to its constitutional power; it deserved to be considered whether we had not retrograded since the Convocation was practically abolished, not by reason of the indisposition of the Church to do its duty, but of he having been deprived of that voice in the State which was her right. The hon. Gentleman then read a passage from Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, cap. vi. sec. 2; and went on to say, that the Constitution of England was framed not merely with reference to the acquisition of national riches. The weal of nations, like that of individuals, depended on pre-eminence of virtue. Two views might be taken of this question—one, the more Ecclesiastical; the other, the more Political. The first contemplated the considerations on which the Church might require that the Convocation should be revived; the second, the considerations on which the State required the revival of the Convocation. The latter would mainly occupy the attention of the House of Commons. In another House of Parliament, and by a right rev. Prelate, the question had been brought under consideration some time ago, and the question then turned chiefly on the utility of the Con- vocation for the guidance of the Church; but in the House of Commons he intended to call the attention to the degree in which the State stood in need of the advice of the Clergy; and he could not think that he was calling the attention of the House to a mere dogma of constitutional law, or a doctrine of abstract philosophy, but, on the contrary, that this was a question of an eminently practical nature, and well worthy the attention of Legislators. Did they not see a Ministry the strongest by far that the country had ever been governed by for fifty years—strong in the esteem of the country—strong in the individual character of its Members; the head of which, in the House of Lords, was the Duke of Wellington: and its head in the House of Commons, a man whose name would accompany that of the Duke of Wellington throughout all time? Did they not see, he said, a Ministry so strong in itself, so strong in the confidence of the country, stumbling on questions which, but for the absence of the Convocation, would not have existed, or if they had existed, would have presented no difficulties to the House of Commons? Did not the question of Education stop the Factory Bill last year? During the present Session, and at the present moment, had they not got into Parliamentary difficulties of an unprecedented kind, surrounding the attempts of the Government to ameliorate the condition of the factory operatives? Could they forget the startling statements of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, (Lord Ashley,) when he described the condition of the workpeople in the factories and mines of this country—the miserable darkness in which those classes lived, and the scarcely less miserable material evils which pressed upon them? To what were they to attribute such a state of things but the absence of that high voice which would have pointed out to Parliament the origin of those evils as they arose? If the Convocation had been sitting for the last half-century, these miseries would have been authoritatively introduced to the knowledge of the House of Commons for the purpose of their accommodating the means of the Church to the increase in the numbers of the people and to their condition. Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Stockport, Liverpool, and other towns had immensely increased in population, but the Church accommodation had not increased in proportion. Why? Not because the House of Commons had manifested any unwillingness to grant money for that purpose; not because the people were not willing to support the House in doing so; but because the House had not been called upon by the adequate and proper authority to take cognizance of those evils as they arose; Within the last ten years legislation had proceeded with an almost frightful rapidity; the Constitution was not what it was thirteen years ago. That was the answer to those who might object to any alteration of the existing practice in this respect. It was true that the Bishops might be said to represent the Church in Parliament, but it was only in a limited sense; for they held their seats in Parliament not as Clergymen, but as Barons; they were no more to the Church than what Magistrates were to the State; they discharged the executive, not the legislative functions in the body of the Church. Appeals had been made in this and other Dioceses to the Bishop to decide questions of difference as to certain points which had arisen in the Church, but the Bishop was compelled to reply that he had not the power to decide; that resided in the Convocation, and the Convocation by the custom of Parliament never sat. But let it be observed it was only by custom that the Convocation never sat, because, as was well-known, at the meeting of every new Parliament, the Convocations of the two provinces were severally summoned, not by writs from the Crown, but from the Archbishops, and having met, and been harangued by the Archbishop in a tone of compliment to the Crown, were immediately prorogued. The opinion of Mr. Burke might, perhaps, be cited against him, but in Burke's time there might be a propriety in allowing the Convocation to rest in peace; there were no questions in those days which required its sitting; but since the commencement of the last half century many questions of great moment had arisen, which would have been best settled by that learned body, to whose province they strictly belonged. Why should there be any fear among parties in that House of reviving the Convocation? It was either because their politics were rotten and would not bear the inspection of religion, or because their religion was too light to make it possible that the two should co-operate harmoniously. [The hon. Member was proceeding, when the House was counted out.]