I rise to address the House on a case of Privilege, and I am sure that on the part of my hon. Friend, the Member for Beverley, and myself, I may be permitted truly to state, that we are most unwilling to occupy any portion of the precious time of the House, however short, on a matter of a personal character. And if I could have regarded it merely as a matter personally affecting myself, I should have hesitated long before I brought it under the attention of the House; but, as I said yesterday, I feel strongly that whatever concerns the character and honour of any hon. Member of this House is intimately and indissolubly connected with this House itself; and after what transpired on Monday and yesterday, I am satisfied that the deliberate opinion and dispassionate judgment of the House is, that the matter then considered cannot be allowed to rest where it now is. I have consulted with my hon. Friend, the Member for Beverley, and he and I consider that the proper course for our adoption is, that certain passages of a speech, purporting to be delivered by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and published in the Times newspaper of Wednesday, the 10th of April, should now be read. These passages contain first, the charge against myself, and secondly, the charge which applies both to the hon. Member for Beverley and myself. I do not think it right to add more at present, and I deem that I shall best discharge my duty—and I believe my hon. Friend concurs with me in that opinion—by laying the two passages on the Table, for the purpose of having them read by the Clerk.

The Clerk at the Table read the following passages from the Times newspaper of the 10th of April:—

"Mr. Ferrand: I know a little about Sir J. Graham. I have had to battle against him when fighting the cause of the working classes in this county; and a man who took steps to procure a report which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House of Commons who raised his voice in defence of the suffering poor, would not hesitate to keep the working classes in the manufacturing districts in a state of degrading slavery [Cheers]. What was his conduct in my own case? I stuck to the man like a leech. [Cheers]. I told him the report of Mr. Mott, his assistant Poor-Law Commissioner, was false. I was determined to bring it before the House until justice was done; but he feared to meet me, and dismissed the poor tool who had been his degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating the injurious report [Cheers]. That is not all Sir J. 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. Walter was returned for Nottingham, and I have had the honour of battling by that Gentleman's side the enemies of the poor [Loud Cheers]. No man has resisted the New Poor-Law more vigorously or at a greater sacrifice of time and money than Mr. Walter [Cheers]. 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. The Committee sat several days, and entered into an inquiry as to the alleged bribery and corruption which Mr. Walter had committed in obtaining his seat. They could not prove that he had spent one farthing, nor had he; they could only prove that his friends in the town of Nottingham, not his agents, had spent between 30l. and 40l. in money and what they called treating; The Committee was divided—there were three Whigs for throwing him out, and three Tories for keeping Mr. Walter 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 40l. 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 higgled and haggled through his explanation; but there was one man who vociferously cheered, and that one man was Sir James Graham!

After the Clerk had read the passage,

Is the hon. Member for Knaresborough in his place?

No answer.

Sir, I believe I am acting in conformity with general usage in undertaking, on account of the position in which I have the honour to be placed in this House, as the head of Her Majesty's Government, respectfully to tender to the House my opinion as to the course which it will be desirable to pursue. I advised the House in the course of yesterday evening, when this subject was under consideration, to permit an interval to elapse before they came to any decision, in order that there might be the opportunity during that interval for each Member, taking an interest in this case, to refer to the precedents which have been established in cases at all of an analogous description. The position in which we are now placed is this—that two Members of this House, considering that their character is affected by charges which appear to have been preferred against them in a speech delivered at a public meeting, reported in one of the newspapers of this country, and attributed to a Member of this House, have thought fit, in the exercise of their right, as Members of Parliament, to place on the Table of the House the passages of which they complain, in order that the House may take that course which may appear to them to be the best. That is the position in which we are placed. I have referred, during the interval which has elapsed since this subject was last under our consideration, to the cases in recent times, which appear to bear upon this question. I think the three principal cases are the case of the complaint preferred by Lord Maidstone against Mr. O'Connell; the application made to the House by Mr. Sheil, the right hon. Gentleman who is now a Member of this House, for the vindication of his character against certain charges which were brought against him in a speech delivered by a Member of this House, Mr. Hill, at a public meeting; and the third case is a complaint made by the hon. Member for Warrington, Mr. Blackburn, against a Gentleman who had been unseated by the Report of a Select Committee, Mr. Poulter. These are the cases in recent times which appear to have an immediate bearing upon the proceedings in the present instance. I will not point out the nice distinctions which may exist between these several cases and the present. The conclusion which I have drawn from the course pursued on the whole of these occasions is this, that it would be right upon the present occasion to resolve, that this House will take the complaint which has now been made by two of its Members, into consideration on Friday next. My respectful advice to the House is, that we shall proceed in this case with strict adherence to all established formalities—that we shall give no party any right to complain that we are taking advantage of admissions casually made by him, or that we are acting precipitately, or have refused to allow him an opportunity of maturely considering and explaining anything which he may have said. I think that, in the course of yesterday, the hon. Member for Knaresborough did distinctly admit that the paragraph complained of contained a correct report of his speech. He also stated that he was prepared to abide by the charge which that paragraph implied. Still, although he made that admission, the hon. Member did not conclude the speech he was then delivering; and it is possible, that had that speech been brought to a conclusion, it might have been accompanied with qualifications which he had not an opportunity of making. I think, therefore, that strict justice would incline me to advise that we should not take advantage of admissions made under such circumstances. I should advise that we resolve to take the matter of this complaint into consideration on Friday next; and I would accompany that resolution with another, namely, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough should attend in his place on Friday next, for the purpose of hearing that paragraph read to him by the Speaker, in order that be may state whether or not he admits this report to be a correct report of what he said; and I think also that we ought to give him an opportunity of substantiating the charges which he has made. If he admits the Report, and if he states that he is in a condition to prove it, and that he is willing to attempt to prove the charges which he has preferred, my advice to the House is, to give him an unreserved opportunity of doing so. I would not assume the falsity of the Report; but I would advise the House, if the hon. Member is willing to undertake the proof, to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of enabling the hon. Member to establish his charges. I will discuss no other contingencies, and I trust that I have spoken as becomes my position in giving my advice to the House. Acting upon the assumption that the hon. Gentleman will repeat the admission of the correctness of the Report, and that he is on Friday, after mature deliberation, willing to take that course which any man, admitting the accuracy of such a Report would be inclined to take, that of professing his readiness to substantiate by evidence his charge, I will not discuss any other assumption. My advice to the House is, that we in this matter act most dispassionately, and with due regard, if not to any precedent we may be about to establish, still to the extension of the precedents we have already before us. My advice is, that all due observance should be paid to the forms established; I therefore content myself with moving, that this House will take the said complaint into consideration on Friday next; and if the House should adopt that Motion, I will then move that Mr. Ferrand do attend in his place on that day.

I rise merely to say, that I entirely concur in the course now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. In the present state of the matter, I think I cannot do better than refrain from saying a single word respecting it. I think a fitter course could not be pursued under the circumstances.

The impression on my mind is, that the words which have been just read to the House do not bear out the charges which are alleged to have been made against the hon. Member for Beverley; and as to the charge against the right hon. Baronet, of having tampered with the hon. Member for Beverley, I cannot see that the article in the Times at all sustains the construction which has been put upon it. With respect to the case of Mr. Mott, I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman did read a document which had been got up by Mr. Mott, and which document, if the public papers speak the truth, was acknowledged to be false, and Mr. Mott has since been dismissed from his office. I think, that as far as the hon. Member for Beverley is concerned, he must have perceived, from the cheering of the House that his character stands altogether unimpeached. I can bear my testimony that his character is as unimpeached, as it is unimpeachable. As to the hon. Member for Knaresborough, I must admit that he has the misfortune of not being able to control his tongue. But I think it a dangerous precedent, that a Minister of the Crown, backed by a majority of the House, should be able to put down any man, by declaring what may have been said to be false and calumnious, who ventured to bring a charge against him. On that ground I, at this early period, rise to protest against it.

The hon. Gentleman has altogether mistaken the course I proposed to pursue. I did not intend that the House should pass any hasty Resolution. What I proposed was simply this, that if the hon. Member for Knaresborough should repeat the charge, after hearing it read by the Speaker, then the House should give him a full opportunity to substantiate it.

I am not quite satisfied that we are arguing from precedent. I think, according to precedent, the proprietor or publisher of a newspaper is, in a case of this kind, ordered to attend at the Bar. In this case, it does not appear to me, that we have anything to do with the newspapers. But you have put in a newspaper, and if you do so, you ought to call the printer or publisher to the Bar. [Lord Stanley: No, no.] The noble Lord says "no." The noble Lord, I think, yesterday went further than any other Member in expressing his opinion upon this matter; for he stated that there was not a single Mem- ber of the House who did not know, and that the hon. Member for Knaresborough himself knew, that what he stated was false. That was going a long way. The right way of proceeding on this occasion was that which the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department suggested— namely, that the words of the hon. Member for Knaresborough should be taken down. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, in his place, declared that those words were used. Why, then, should the House go through the intermediate process of reading a newspaper? What have we to do with the newspapers on this occasion? In what I am saying I do not mean in the slightest degree to justify what the hon. Member for Knaresborough stated in his speech. On the contrary, I do not believe there was the slightest pretence or justification on his part for making those assertions or accusations against the two hon. Members of this House. But it must also be recollected the peculiar position which the House is in—that those two hon. Members for ten days after the speech was made took no notice whatever of it. Certainly, when I read that speech, as reported in the newspapers, it did occur to me that on the first day of Parliament meeting, we could not separate without those two hon. Members (Sir James Graham and Mr. Hogg) calling upon the hon. Member for Knaresborough, who had so calumniated them, as no doubt he had done, before 4,000 of his fellow-subjects. The hon. Member for Beverley stated that he had been advised by his friends to treat the charge with silent contempt. I think the hon. Gentleman received good advice. Then what occurred? Another hon. Member, totally unconnected with either the right hon. Baronet, or the hon. Member for Beverley, gets up and says to the hon. Member for Knaresborough—"Pray did you say so-and-so of Mr. So-and-So?" If such a question had been put to me, I should have said, "Pray what business is that of yours?" I certainly should have said, had either of those two hon. Members who feel themselves personally aggrieved put the question to me, that I am ready to give you any explanation or satisfaction in this House or out of it; but if they do not think proper to call upon me, I don't see what right any other hon. Member has to call upon me. I think that would have been a very proper and good answer, and had it been made, I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) and the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg) would have done; but I think they would have persevered in treating this absurd affair with the contempt it deserved. But here we are; one Member asking a question of another, who, perhaps, being taken off his guard, admitted having made the statement. Therefore, we have to deal with that statement. The hon. Member has avowed it, and why we are going now in this round-about way to put in a newspaper I know not. I should say, the proper way would be at once to appoint a Committee of the House, however few in number. I would let the hon. Member for Knaresborough himself nominate a Committee of any three or five Members; and if before that Committee he refused to substantiate his charges, or if in that Committee he failed to sustain his accusations, then it would be for the Committee to report that there was no foundation for the accusations or imputations cast upon the two hon. Members. If such a Report were made, I do not believe that the House would be required to exercise that authority which it undoubtedly possesses, of calling upon the hon. Member for Knaresborough to retract the charges he had made, and to do everything in his power, by retracting those charges, to excuse himself not only in the eyes of the House, but also in the eyes of the hon. Members he had unjustly accused. I do not, I say, believe that he would require the authority of this House to be exercised; because I trust that he would, as a Gentleman, be ready to say, that he regretted having made those charges for which there was no foundation whatever.

said,—Sir, as I was a Member of the Nottingham Election Committee, and as I am as well aware probably as any Member of this House of the conduct of the hon. Member for Beverley, and of the utter groundlessness of the charge against him, I may venture to offer a few words to the House on this subject. The groundlessness of the charge against the hon. and learned Member is so evident to every one who has the pleasure of his personal acquaintance, that it is scarcely necessary for me to dwell on it. I believe that no man ever performed his duty more satisfactorily to a Committee than did our Chairman on that occasion. I entirely differ with him as to the conclusion to which he came, but I never questioned for a moment the conscientious spirit which guided him; nor was there any but one feeling in the Committee on the subject. With regard to the hon. Member whose comments are now under our consideration, I entirely disapprove of the course he has taken; I disapprove of the spirit he has constantly evinced towards an important division of Her Majesty's subjects—of the tone he has evinced towards the master manufacturers. In that tone and spirit I do not share. I acknowledge them as a most important body of men—as men in importance second to none. I repeat, that I disapprove of the course taken by the hon. Member for Knaresborough; I speak therefore with no prejudice in his favour; and yet I believe that the course which the House is about to take in treating this subject, is one injudicious in itself, and which we shall undoubtedly regret. Two courses were open to the hon. Member for Beverley, if he thought himself aggrieved, and that the charges made against him ought to be noticed. He might have asked some friend—some friend of good sense and good temper—and requisite firmness —to apply to the hon. Member for Knaresborough. [A laugh.] Oh, I know some gentlemen think that an appeal of that kind can only lead to Wimbledon-common and pistols; but I am of opinion that in 99 cases out of a 100, or rather in 999 cases out of a 1,000, such a result would not come to pass. I have no doubt that had this case between the hon. Member for Beverley and the hon. Member for Knaresborough been intrusted in that way to individuals to settle, the result would have been amicable. I believe that a result might have been come to that would have been satisfactory to the honour of the hon. Member for Beverley and not degrading to the hon. Member for Knaresborough. But there was also another course; the hon. Member for Beverley might have thrown himself upon the House; he might have called upon the House to protect him in his official character. But the hon. Member did neither; he made neither a public nor a private appeal; another hon. Gentleman, who assumes to himself the position of public accuser in the House without giving any notice of his intention to moot the subject —without affording that golden bridge which the social spirit always allows to any man who may have given utterance to an intemperate or an indiscreet expression—without giving an opportunity to the parties to arrive at a gentlemanly result. [Mr. Roebuck—"Hear."] The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to approve and to exult in the mischief which he has been the means of bringing about, —I say the hon. and learned Member introduced the subject to the House, although the hon. Member for Beverley had not thought that necessary. And, with all my feelings for the hon. Member for Beverley, and believing the imputation on him by the hon. Member for Knaresborough to be most groundless, I still do conceive that nothing could have been more indecorous than the manner in which the hon. Member for Knaresborough was received on the first night of this discussion, — nothing more inconsistent with the judicial character we are assuming. Why, the hon. Member for Bath began his judicial proceedings by sarcasms. That was the way the hon. and learned Member introduced the subject to the House. To be sure they were not very successful; but they sufficiently showed his disposition. If the master-hand was not apparent, the motive certainly was. The hon. Member for Beverley has not elected of his own will, either in public or private, to appeal to the hon. Member for Knaresborough. The affair has been gratuitously precipitated on the notice of the House by an individual; and the very body who are judicially to decide upon the question have unfortunately shown a disposition not exactly in unison with what we conceive to be a judicial spirit. Certainly the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration has to night endeavoured to restore some degree of order to the subject—to invest the proceedings of the House with some degree of dignity and decorum but the question now arises whether, after we have wasted two nights in discussion on the subject, and have at length got the extracts from the paper on the Table, it will not be expedient to go a little further, and let the matter fall altogether to the ground. For, it appears to me, that we are about to enter on a very delicate subject, a subject of no common seriousness—on the question what are to be the limits allowed to public discussion? Is it to be understood clearly that no charge is to be made against any hon. Member, but the House of Commons is to step forward to convert themselves into a court of honour, and to call on the accuser to prove the truth of the charge so made? I think there is already sufficient power to keep speakers in order in that responsibility which attaches to every man. I have heard many charges made in this House of a very grave character—graver than any that have been made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, I heard a charge made last Session by an hon. Gentleman occupying a very different position from that of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, — by a man of high station in this House. Did not the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government himself rise in this House and charge an hon. Member opposite with making speeches with the purpose of stimulating men to commit assassination? I should like to know who in that case moved the House against the right hon. Gentleman? Yet the right hon. Gentleman when he made that declaration must have been perfectly aware that it was one which could not be substantiated by proof. You did not attempt to cow him, you did not hoot the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion as you did the hon. Member for Knaresborough, but you quailed under the accusation which he could not prove and which you repudiated in a way which I think reflected very little credit on your spirit. But the hon. Member for Knaresborough comes before you, obnoxious to many on account of the cause he advocates; he comes forward unsupported by a great and powerful party, and then an opportunity is taken of getting up a cry against him. He is baited and bullied. ["Oh,"] Yes, I say he is bullied—one hon. Gentleman gets up after another hon. Gentleman, all to assail one man, and he is treated in a way, not usual, as I believe, in this House. I say if the common courtesy of society had been exercised towards him, he would have had an opportunity of extricating himself from the position—a very painful one I admit—in which he was placed—an opportunity which is uniformly granted to every Member of this House. But the hon. Gentleman has not been afforded that opportunity. It is said that he has flown from this tribunal. I must say I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not select this tribunal as the one by which he would wish the question to be tried. I have not had any communication with the hon. Member, except as I passed into the House yesterday, when I said to him that I thought he had a very bad case, and a worse tribunal. My impression is, Sir, that the hon. Member did not in any way fly from the charge, but that he did clearly and distinctly demur to the tribunal. I understood him to mean, that he considered, on reflection, that he was in a position in which it was necessary for him to enter into an explanation with those individuals whom it was thought he had offended, and that he was ready to enter into such explanation in the proper manner and in the proper place. He did not consider that the quarrel between him and an hon. Member ought to be made the quarrel of the House of Commons, or that the House ought to convert itself into a court of honour. Now, the point for the House to consider —sympathising as all of us do with the hon. Member for Beverley, yet wishing to act towards the hon. Member for Knaresborough in the spirit of justice—the practical point for the House to consider is, whether we are not establishing a dangerous precedent in beginning to act as a court of honour, taking up all questions of controversy which may arise between hon. Members? Between the hon. Member for Beverley and the hon. Member for Knaresborough there was a clear course which would have led, as I think to a satisfactory conclusion. Between the hon. Member for Knaresborough and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department there is a totally different quarrel. I have heard the hon. Member for Knaresborough on several occasions enter into a detail of the circumstances connected with the great Mott case, and I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department answer the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and I have also heard the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration discourse on this subject. I have heard them all; and I honestly and frankly declare that I never could annex a definite idea to any single circumstance that transpired in that most complicated transaction. Something in it there certainly was, the case was not altogether in nubibus—there was a case, there was a sub-Commissioner, a Report that was quoted and not printed, a Commissioner that was quoted and dismissed. That there was altogether a considerable degree of suspicion involved in the circumstances of the case no one can deny. But because there was this suspicion, did any one suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his exalted position, would pervert his power for so slight an object? There is no dignus nodus for such an interference; and yet a Member of Parliament of warm feelings and of a decided character, not supported by any great party in the House, involved in a personal discussion with a Minister of the Crown, and who thinks he has been un justly treated, who believes there has been an attempt to put him down, or as it is usually termed crushed, might take an extreme and exaggerated view of his position, and suppose himself engaged in a contest with a powerful Government. What more natural? It excites the fancy — it appeals to vanity. It is indeed the most natural thing in the world. But yet that because the hon. Member for Knaresborough, when addressing large bodies of the operative classes of the community with whom I think he has great influence —because he states "that he will stick like a leach to the Home Secretary," "that the Home Secretary has got up a report which was never printed, but which he brought out of his red box on the green table to meet the hon. Member with" —"that, confident in the energies and feelings of the people, he defied the Minister and all his made up reports, and that he should not crush him," Good God, Sir, have we come to this, that because a mere Member of Parliament says such things as these, that men like the right hon. the Secretary of State are to come forward with that demure countenance which he can put on, and say the State is in danger—that something is rotten in the state of Denmark—that the House of Commons must interfere to vindicate the reputation of this, I believe still strong, though not popular Ministry? I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman would have taken of his own free option the course he has taken. I will stake my existence that if there had been no allusion to the case of the hon. Member for Beverley we should never have heard of the great Mott case. It is entirely the case of the hon. Member for Beverley. I declare I never read the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. I have not time to read those speeches made in this House, which I don't hear, much less the speeches made at meetings in the country; but, when I heard it read tonight with unusual powers of elocution by our learned clerk, I listened with great attention, and looking to what has resulted from that speech, I must say I was surprised at the weakness of the assault. I declare, on my honour, that that was the impression left on my mind on hearing the extracts read which have given rise to this discussion. I really thought that the hon. Member for Knaresborough, when addressing on that occasion the masses and the millions of his fellow-countrymen, did lose a great deal of the fire and inspired fervour which usually characterize his speeches in this House. It appeared to me that he did not make his attack on the hon. Member for Beverley absent with half the fire and energy with which I have heard him attack the hon. Member for Stockport present in speeches which might indeed have been read at the Table, and on which a Secretary of State might indeed have risen gravely to move a solemn resolution. I think this subject was treated in a great measure in the right way by one who last night spoke upon it. I think the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration treated this subject in the right way, when with that historical research and that unrivalled memory for which he is famed, he referred to the case of the bottle conjuror. And I must say I was surprised that after the right hon. Gentleman had set such an example, he was followed by the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire in such a different spirit. There is always something chivalric about the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire; and one cannot but admire him, when hastening to the rescue of his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of Sate; but when he was giving a proper model for the future orations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough—when he wished to teach him what should be the subjects of Parliamentary discussion, and the spirit in which the hon. Member should sustain them — I must say I could not suppress my surprise at seeing the noble Lord get up, and in his zeal to inform the hon. Member for Knaresborough, first denounce his statements as calumnies, and then charge the hon. Member with having made those statements knowing them to be calumnious. That is the model by which the hon. Member for Knaresborough, probably stationed in the lobby, will profit when he returns to the House. He will probably follow the noble Lord's example, and we shall find the speeches of the hon. Member for Knaresborough hereafter distinguished for all that amenity of manner and that choice selection of conciliatory phrase which have hitherto distinguished the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire. The noble Lord declares the hon. Member for Knaresborough is an intentional calumniator. I should like to know how the noble Lord can prove that? How will the noble Lord substantiate that assertion, better than the hon. Member for Knaresborough has substantiated his. The noble Lord, in this case, as in so many others, first destroys his opponent, and then destroys his own position afterwards. The noble Lord is the Prince Rupert of Parliamentary discussion; his charge is resistless; but when he returns from the pursuit he always finds his camp in the possession of the enemy; and, as if all these great guns were not sufficient to sink this unfortunate craft, then comes the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to keep up the solemn inspiration of the farce, and rising, tells us, "This is the British House of Commons. This is not a hustings." Gentlemen it seems may tell lies upon the hustings, but Gentlemen may not tell lies in the British House of Commons. This is the political morality of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. Now, I entirely differ from the right hon. Gentleman on this point. I certainly do not think Gentlemen ought to tell lies in the House of Commons; but I also think hon. Gentlemen ought to be as careful in what they say on the hustings. I even go farther than that; I say that hon. Gentlemen ought not even to make pledges on the hustings which they do not mean to keep in the House of Commons. I don't think that a Gentleman on the hustings, for example, ought to denounce the New Poor Law, and then come into the House of Commons and vote for it— I call that corrupt and unprincipled conduct, and if there be any Gentleman in this House who has been guilty of that conduct, why he may rise in his place and propose a vote of censure on me for saying so. New, Sir, it seems that on Friday next the hon. Member for Knaresborough is to come into this House, if he chooses to accept the lenient alternative offered him by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and we are then to re-commence the proceedings of which we now have had three rehearsals. Whether the piece will succeed after so many initiatory proceedings, I cannot take on myself to decide; but this I do know, that no attempt by this House, whether right or wrong in the beginning, from the time of Sacheverell to our friend Mr. Stockdale, to run down an individual, has ever succeeded, or has ever terminated to the advantage of this House, or the increase of their favour in public opinion. Remember what another Sir Robert—not a greater man than our Sir Robert, but still a most distinguished one—said with respect to the case of Dr. Sacheverell. He said "he had had enough of roasting a parson;" and I must say, having differed from the right hon. Gentleman on subjects analogous to the present, that, after the experience he has had of the assertion of Parliamentary privilege,—although he was assisted on those occasions by the noble Lord the Member for London, who, I observe, has rather withdrawn his support of late from Her Majesty's Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman, taking as he did the great historical view of the case, the "bottle conjuror" view of the case, might really, after what has occurred, allow the matter to drop, feeling assured that the hon. Member for Knaresborough has received a great moral lesson, and that when he appears on the hustings in future, he will, as I doubt not he will, not adopting the distinction of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, be almost as cautious there as he is in the House of Commons.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had, in one part of his speech, strongly advised a proceeding which every Member of that House must set his face against. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the hon. Member who had received the insult complained of should make it a personal quarrel. Now, such a doctrine broached in that House, and more especially when it concerned a Gentleman like the Member for Knaresborough, whom the hon. Gentleman had himself described as being of a very fiery temper, was, to say the least of it, very extraordinary. He hoped that he should never, in the heat of de- bate, utter a word that would be offensive to any hon. Member, or that if he did so, he should at once be ready to apologize. Least of all, however, would he be disposed to make a personal quarrel of anything that occurred with an hon. Member in his public capacity. The hon. Gentleman had said that, in his opinion, the House ought to drop further proceedings in this matter. There he differed from the hon. Member. Had the affair been confined to what originally appeared in the newspapers, perhaps it might have been passed over with silent contempt; but when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough, after twenty-four hours' time to deliberate, came down, and in the most solemn way pledged himself to the truth of the Report, and not only pledged himself to the truth of it, but also said that he had not one word to extenuate of what he had said, under such circumstances he could not think that it would be consistent with the dignity of that House, or with the rules which regulated their proceedings, to allow the matter to drop. One word more, especially after the able defence for the hon. Member for Knaresborough, that had been made by the hon. Member; it would be in the recollection of every hon. Member, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough used to be cheered on most vociferously by hon. Gentlemen opposite, whenever he made use of violent and harsh language against the Anti-Corn Law League and the manufacturers on that (the Opposition) side of the House; they cheered him on his unenviable notoriety. They had themselves in a great measure to thank for the proceedings on the part of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, which had given rise to the discussion to-night. He (Captain Berkeley) had heard it very aptly remarked by an hon. Member on his side of the House, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough was kept as a dog to bait the manufacturers, but that having broken his chain he had turned round, and was now worrying his masters.

said, it was my intention, Sir, if any Vote of Censure had been proposed to be passed on the hon. Member for Knaresborough, to have moved the previous question. After what has taken place this evening, I think it right to move that question as an Amendment on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. I do this on general grounds, because I am not prepared to agree in the general proposition laid down by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, that this House is bound, in every case in which a quarrel takes place between Members, to interfere and see justice done. I cannot help being decidedly of opinion, that if the hon. and learned Member for Beverley felt aggrieved by anything which had been said out of the House, two courses were open for him to have pursued. The one has been hinted at by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, and the other course sanctioned by the law, was an appeal to a Court of Justice. Indeed, I have heard that there are some proceedings now pending over the hon. Member for Knaresborough of a similar kind. Under these circumstances I must protest against the House adopting the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department, and against its taking upon itself to say, which party is right or which is wrong in a matter of this kind. This House has already sufficient business to transact without taking upon itself those functions and duties which properly belong to the courts of law. And let me add, that although by adopting such a course we may lessen the business in the courts of law, we should greatly add to that of this House. Denying then the general principles which have been laid down on this occasion, allow me now to refer to the case of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley. I almost ought to apologize to him for entering upon his case, and I think I ought at once to observe that nothing is further from my intention in proposing my amendment than in the slightest degree to express anything like an opinion against the hononr and character either of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) or of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley. After guarding myself against any such imputation, I must entreat the House to reflect candidly and impartially upon what is the direct charge from which the hon. and learned Member for Beverley would infer a libel on the part of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. Like the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, I listened attentively to the paragraph when it was read by the clerk at the Table, and also when it was read in the first instance by the hon. and learned Member for Beverley himself, and on the moment I heard it, I felt confident that the imputation which the hon. and learned Member thought he could prove to the House could not with reason be inferred from it by the House, because in the next sentence which the hon. and learned Member uttered after reading the extract he asked the House "Is there any human being who can read that article"— [An hon. Member:—"What article?"] Why, the article in The Times:—

"Is there any human being, (said the hon. and learned Member for Beverley) who can read that article and not be impressed with this —that it is scarcely an implied but a distinct charge against me, of having been influenced by the Home Secretary and the Government basely to forego my duty, and to give a verdict for the exclusion from the House of a person who was unacceptable to them? If in a court of justice you were inquiring the obvious meaning of an alleged libel, you would ask any man of plain understanding, what was the obvious intent and construction of the words?"

And then the hon. and learned Member said, that for the meaning and construction of the words he referred to the journal itself. Now, I protest against such a line of argument. I say, that when a charge is made for words contained in a speech delivered out of the House by a Member in which dishonourable motives are supposed to be imputed to another Member of the House, you must take the words which are said to form the accusation in their literal acceptation, and you are not to say, "Read such a newspaper and see what are its comments upon the words used." You must not put two and two together in order to make a whole, and upon this, say whether or not the party who had uttered the words intended so and so. Such a course of proceeding is essentially unfair; and if that is the course pursued in courts of justice, then I say, give Mr. Ferrand all the privileges he would be entitled to in a court of law, allow him time to prepare his defence, appoint him counsel, and afford him all the facilities given in a court of justice to every person charged with a crime. Pursue this course, and do not say you will admit accumulated evidence to prove the guilt, that you will take up another article and couple it with the plain English words uttered by a plain English man, and thus extract something that may seem to be libellous. I call upon the House to come to a decision on the literal words of the extract which has been read from the speech. Let hon. Members look at those words. I have not only listened to them, but I have read them with deliberation and attention half-a-dozen times, and I defy any man to assert that any imputation upon the honour and character of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley can be extracted from them. The words which are said to convey the charge as brought forward are these:—

"The Committee appointed to try the Nottingham petition consisted of three Whigs and three Tories—the Committee were divided— the three Whigs were for throwing him out, the three Tories were for keeping him in. This Tory Chairman, Mr. Hogg, the Member for Beverley — one of the most pure boroughs in the kingdom, forsooth—aided Sir J. Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter."

Now, is there in these words any imputation of dishonourable motives upon the hon. and learned Member for Beverley? I cannot perceive anything like it. [Oh! Oh!] The hon. Member behind me cries "Oh!" but I repeat that this is my firm impression. Those words contain statements of facts, not imputations. I have myself marked the unpleasant altercations which have taken place in this House between the right hon. the Home Secretary and the late Member for Nottingham (Mr. Walter), and I have no hesitation in saying, from what I have noticed that the right hon. Baronet was very glad that Mr. Walter was unseated. That therefore, is one fact, and the hon. and learned Member for Beverley was the Chairman of the Committee which turned out Mr. Walter. These are two facts, I think, two strong facts, from which to draw a conclusion. I draw none myself, but it is competent for any man to draw from those facts an inference; and I say the hon. Member for Knaresborough has not even drawn an inference of his own from them. But when the accusation was first made, I fully expected that it would have appeared that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had gone the length of saying, that the conclusion he had drawn was one affecting the honour and character of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley. The words read contain, as I contend, no such imputation, and therefore the charge falls to the ground. With respect to the other matter—the accusation against the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary,—the right hon. Baronet is himself the best judge in the matter, and he himself expressed a wish in the first place that the affair should rest where it is. Now, I imagine, after that declaration, the House will feel itself justified in allowing the matter to rest in its present position. You have had now two nights' discussion; the matter has gone all one way; the affair has been mixed up with a very bad party spirit; it was commenced without any notice or announcement by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, whose right to bring before the House either the private or public quarrels which take place between its Members I doubt, and therefore on those grounds I shall move the previous question.

—I rise to second the amendment moved by my noble Friend who has just sat down, and in doing so, I desire to address only a very few words to the House. I must observe that, in seconding the amendment, I am only actuated by a sense of justice. I entertain no sympathy in the political opinions which I have heard broached on several occasions in this House by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and more especially on the subject of the Factory question. I believe that the course he has pursued on that question has been most delusive, hazardous and pernicious; but I am not only of opinion that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department requires no indirect means to enable him to crush a political opponent, but I think, (and I can afford to say so, because I have attacked in this house a much higher personage than the right hon. Baronet) that the right hon. Baronet by his straightforward, unswerving onwardness on the Factory question, has exhibited another proof of great administrative ability. I think that the hallucinations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough with respect to the right hon. Baronet are only to be matched by the hon. Member's hallucinations with regard to machinery. I still, however, unlike the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, believe the hon. Member is in earnest, and I must be permitted to observe, with reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Administration, that on Friday next a Committee shall be appointed, before which the hon. Member for Knaresborough is to be summoned. Is it not so? ["No, no."] Well, then, he is to be summoned to attend in his place, and to be called upon to substantiate the charges which he has made. Now, I apprehend those charges involve a question of motive, and not a question of facts. Suppose the hon. member were summoned— he has no more facts to adduce than those adduced at present. In the case of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley I believe the facts are already before us all. I believe, in common with everybody else, that the inference drawn by the hon. Member for Knaresborough that the hon. and learned Member for Beverley was influenced by corrupt motives is perfectly absurd; on the contrary, I believe that the motive which influenced the hon. and learned Member for Beverley was an outrageous sense of public virtue; and for us who have affirmed the decision of the Committee of which the hon. Member for Beverly was Chairman—for us who have affirmed the resolution of the Nottingham Committee, that any Gentleman who pays 40l. for his seat shall cease to sit in Parliament—I must say, that if the hon. and learned Member for Beverley has exhibited more than Roman virtue, we exhibit more than Roman effrontery, because, unlike the Roman augurs, we can look each other in the face without laughing. But what is the fact in respect to the hon. Member for Knaresborough, whom I cannot help thinking, we have been bullying a little when we called upon him to prove his belief in the matter? What hon. Member will take upon himself to prove any one of his beliefs? There is in this House a prevalent belief in the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Will any Gentleman prove his belief? The hon. Member for Finsbury, I have heard, believes in the six points of the Charter; will he come forward and undertake to prove his belief? [Mr. T. Buncombe— Yes, I will.] It will be a curious exposition. For myself, I must say, that if I were asked for proofs as to matters of my belief, I should have very great difficulty in finding them. Now, for instance, I cannot help thinking, that we owe the whole of the mischief which at present surrounds us to the hon. and learned Member for Bath; I believe that there has been something a little like an understanding between purity and power. If, however, I am called upon to justify this belief, I can only say I believe it from an intimate observation and study of the hon. and learned Gentleman's political career. I am not to be deceived by the mock severities of spurious patriotism; that assentation which masks itself beneath the guise of cynicism, assailing all men, but sparing one man; aspersing all men, but fawning upon one man; continually inferring that were one not the Diogenes of Bath, one would wish to be the Alexander of Tamworth; that, Sir, is the surest of flatteries. The whole of these asperities and heats are owing to the hon. and learned Member for Bath; he took the hon. Member for Knaresborough by surprise—he took the House by surprise—he took the country by surprise; for I doubt not the country will feel great surprise at finding that this House has postponed such a measure as the Poor Law Bill, and at the instance and instigation of the hon. and learned Member for Bath has entertained these paltry personalities. Nor will that surprise be lessened when the country remembers that the hon. and! learned Member for Bath presents a remarkable antithesis in his own person, being at once the rebel's agent and the Queen's counsel—the champion of Mr. Papineau, and the defender of a Secretary of State.

.—I have as yet taken no part in this debate, and I could have wished that others would have followed the advice which has been given by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. It is not my intention to protract this discussion, but I cannot hear from such an authority as my noble Friend the Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners) the assertion made, and cheered by the House, that there are only two courses for an individual whose character is attacked to take—the one a reference and appeal to a Court of Law, the other an appeal to that which has been hinted at—not obscurely —by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. The question at issue between my noble Friend and myself is this—whether the individual assailed should have recourse to law or should violate the law? I humbly submit that there is another course— a course which has been taken in the three former instances to which my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has referred, and to which precedent he has asked the House now to have recourse. Though I listened most attentively, as I always do to every thing that falls from my noble Friend, I cannot but think I must have misunderstood him on this oc- casion. If I have not misunderstood ray noble Friend, I must oppose the conclusion to which he has been leading the House.

I fear I shall disappoint the House, for I am going to speak to the question. It strikes me that the position of the question before us is at present very simple—it cannot very well be mistaken— I can state it in three words. A Member of the House has charged a Minister of the Crown with an improper use of the powers of his office, for the purpose of getting a false report made to this House in order to crush a Member of this House. That charge was made in the hearing of the House by a Member of the House. Proceeding in support of that charge, the same Member went on to say that the same Minister of the Crown had employed his influence with another Member to induce him to forget the oath he had taken to administer justice, and to return an untrue verdict. The first part of the charge was openly made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough himself, and upon it a Motion is made in this House. But before I go to that, let me recall to the minds of hon. Members how that charge was brought forward. It has been said by an hon. Member opposite that the whole of the mischief is attributable to the hon. and learned Member for Bath. Now, I thought fit to ask of the hon. Member for Knaresborough if he had made a certain accusation. The hon. Member got up and complained that I had given him no notice, but he affirmed that he had made the charge, and he reiterated it. If I were to charge the hon. Member opposite with robbery, I think he would not complain of want of notice, but would instantly deny the imputation. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, however, complained of the absence of notice, but admitted he had made the charge. Now, to do away with the point as to want of notice. The hon. Member for Knaresborough used in this House the words I submitted to him, as he had used them on a former occasion. He repeated the words, and they were these:—" That the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home-Office of this country had used his power as a Minister of the Crown to induce an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner to make a false report to this House for the purpose," added the hon. Member, "of crushing me." I had no part whatever in that which followed. All that related to the hon. and learned Member for Beverley came out on a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and subsequently followed up by the pressing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Now, I want to know if I am to stand before the House as a person called upon to make my defence. Accusations have been made against me, but they are worth nothing—they must come from a more formidable quarter before I will give any answer to them. Is the House willing that this matter should be hushed up? —does it desire that the question should be got rid of by the somewhat cowardly expedient of "the previous question?" Does the noble Lord who has moved the previous question understand the object and meaning of his own proposition? I think that he does not, and that he undervalues the force of it. The "previous question" means this:—A question having been proposed to the House, the House does not wish to entertain it, or to express upon it any opinion whatsoever, and for this purpose the "previous question is moved." What! when a Member of the House charges a Minister of the Crown with using his power to get a false report in order to crush a Member, will not the House express an opinion upon that charge? Have we come to this, that a Minister of the Crown is to be allowed to use his official power to crush a Member of the House? and when a charge of that nature is made, is it to be said that the House is bullying and running down the Member who makes it, because it seeks an explanation from him? If I were to make a charge against any man, however insignificant, I should come prepared with some proof to support it; and when a Member of this House charges a Minister, as has been done in this instance, I say it is the duty of the House to ascertain whether the charge be well founded; and I further say that as a matter of privilege, it was my duty to bring the matter before the House. I say that, not only as a Member of this House, but as an honest man, the hon. Member ought to have been prepared with some evidence in support of his assertions. I gave him the opportunity of making a statement to this House; this House gave him the opportunity of substantiating that statement; he reiterated the charge, but fled from supporting it. Nevertheless, "Nay," says the House, mildly and leniently, "we will determine nothing in haste, but give the hon. Member a further opportunity, first, of reconsidering his charge; may be, he will see reason to recal it." Sir, every honourable man will be glad if the hon. Member should recal his charge. Such is the first alternative offered by the House, which not only says this to the hon. Member, but much more, for it says secondly, "Let him reiterate his charge, and we will give him a full opportunity of substantiating it." Sir, I ask, is that "baiting, and bullying, and running down?" I know how easy it is for hon. Gentlemen to come down with pretty set speeches, all ready prepared, and then let them off as impromptus. I think hon. Gentlemen will give me credit for some knowledge of the craft: and I am of opinion that we have seen two opportunities of that kind taken this afternoon. But I am asked why take up these private quarrels, and make the House a party to them? Sir, I do not mean to suggest to the House that it should interfere and take upon itself to settle private quarrels. Far be it from me to seek to make this House the arbiter of private quarrels; but is this a private quarrel? How can hon. Gentlemen think so? Sir, when the hon. Member speaks of being rewarded by one's enemies, may I ask, has he forgot what it is to be disappointed by one's friends? Disappointment may have poisoned the arrows shot against friends; it cannot have poisoned those shot against enemies. I have denied these hon. Members nothing; why are they enraged with me? [Lord J. Manners, Hear.] Sir, I am glad the noble Lord cheers, because by doing so, he has called himself up to my recollection. I believe the noble Lord gives way to rather peculiarly sanctified views in matters of religion—that he holds very peculiar notions on matters of high account. Now, I want to know how be reconciles to these notions—and I ask the question of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury also—that suggestion which he and the other hon. Member have made, and which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury calls "a gentlemanly arrangement?" I want to know what they meant by saying, that there was a court of honour open to the hon. Member for Knaresborough? I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows what is the consequence of going before a court of honour? One who does so has a right to conclude that the consequence will be the worst which the case admits of. I think that any man with the spirit of a gentleman in him would be prepared for the worst on such an occasion. At the suggestion, then, of the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, the Member for Knaresborough, always remembering the peculiar views of the noble Lord, was to take this course, was he? I am aware that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury is too acute, too experienced a manager of words, to have left much room for hold to be taken—but I delighted in the exhibition he made, and, if he will permit me, a poor lame critic compared with such a master of the art as he is, to say so, I know his skill in fence; he is too well practised, he is too artful to leave a weak place. What he really wished for the hon. Member for Beverley was what every man would wish to have for himself in such a situation—a prudent friend, who might have gone to the other party and have got him (Mr. Hogg) out of the business; but if he could not get him out, then, according to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, he must have fought on this occasion. That hon. Gentleman could mean nothing else, and that view was supported by the noble Lord. Now, Sir, I think that, after all we have seen and known within these two months—all those horrors so direful and so barbarous— that two gentlemen should get up and say, knowing what they were saying, that this is the suggestion they would make, would have been thoroughly disgraceful if they had known that what we have seen within these two months would have been carried into effect again in this case. The question now comes to this,—is this a matter of such importance that we ought to lend it an importance which in itself it does not possess? Now, let the House observe the peculiar position in which we stand. I have been the means of bringing forward a charge against a Minister of the Crown made by a Member of this House. The House must entertain the subject. I have no doubt, therefore, that I ought to vote in support of the right hon. Baronet against whom that charge has been made.

The hon. and learned Member had just made the same charge upon him, which the hon. Member for Knaresborough was accused of making against the hon. Member for Beverley, for the hon. and learned Member had charged him with violating honour and integrity by voting, under disappointment, contrary to what he should otherwise have done. That he had voted or acted under disappointment was not true. He utterly denied the imputation.

The hon. Member cannot speak a second time, except in explanation.

Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath, I cannot help expressing my grave doubts whether, in the position in which we are now acting, we should not act more wisely by adopting the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Newark, and allowing this matter to rest here. No one condemns more strongly than myself the language used by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. Although I voted with that hon. Member on the Factory bill, I believe that there is no man who more disapproves of his conduct in the factory district, and has a stronger opinion of its incorrectness than myself: there is no man who feels more convinced than myself that the hon. Member for Beverley stands far above such an attack as has been made on him. The attacks upon the hon. Member, and on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, are in the opinion of every man worthy of a moment's consideration, altogether groundless, and brought forward in a most proper manner; but it does not follow, because the attack is unfounded and ought never to have been made, that the House will act wisely and judiciously by pursuing the matter further. What has the hon. Member for Bath now said? Is it because a Minister of the Crown is accused of perverting his ministerial power, for the purpose of crushing an individual Member of this House, and the House passes by the accusation, that the House expresses no opinion on the subject? By passing it by, will the House express no opinion? If there were the most distant ground for a suspicion that there has been such an abuse of power by a Minister of the Crown, no doubt the House would take up the matter. It is because the House feels that the charge is altogether groundless, and that it is only contemptible for that very reason, it thinks it ought to pass it by. If the House thought that any abuse had been committed, let there be a committee, let the charge be sifted to the bottom; if you do suspect the abuse of official power, let the man who has so abused it be proved to have done so, and be liable to such punishment as his acts deserve. That is the course which the House should take if it thought there were any grounds for the accusation; and if it takes no notice of the charge, it shows its strong disbelief in its truth. If, however, we take the other course, we are bound to consider what will be the precedent which we shall establish. An hon. and gallant Member who spoke on this side of the House said, and said rightly, that although in the present case the charge is utterly groundless, and no man has the least suspicion of its truth, yet there may arise a case in which a Minister of the Crown may have abused his official power, and we may put down discussion by the condemnation of the hon. Member, and may thereby establish a precedent which in future times will greatly fetter the liberty of private discussion, which is so essential. Do I say, therefore, that groundless charges are to meet with no punishment? Do I say, that persons making lightly such accusations ought to enjoy entire impunity? I say that the proper and deserved punishment which would fall on persons hazarding such statements would be the loss of personal respect, and the contempt of all reasonable men. A man who makes a charge which is utterly groundless, who is challenged to substantiate the charge, and cannot, or will not do so, will be lowered in the opinion of this House and of the country, and it is this degradation in the eyes of the House and of the country which is the proper punishment for such an offence. Suppose that we vote this to be a gross and unfounded calumny, what do we gain by that? If the circumstances are such that the public already considers it a groundless calumny, we add nothing to the weight of public censure by our vote. The punishment of the individual is the public degradation he has incurred. Again, there may be grounds of suspicion; a Minister may have misconducted himself, a charge may be brought forward against him, and yet there may be no means of making that charge entirely good. As has been stated by the hon. Member for Canterbury it may not be a question of facts, but a matter of opinion and belief: they might only come at last to belief, and no man can give evidence of belief. In such a case, if the House shall come to a resolution that the charge is a calumny, whilst the public opinion is the other way, such a resolution will have no public weight. If we begin to put this resolution in force, we must be prepared to continue the system. If we begin with noticing accusations against Ministers of the Crown, why shall we not notice accusations against individual Members? The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that it is not a question of a Minister of the Crown, that all Members of this House are equal, and it is only the question of the honour of an individual Member. Are you prepared to act on that opinion? If you are, then whenever a charge is brought against any individual Member, you must follow it up as you do now. Where the charge is groundless, I can see no difference between the case of a Minister of the Crown and of an individual Member. The question, however, is of much greater importance if a Minister of the Crown be suspected of an abuse of his power than of a suspicion against an individual Member. In the first case the House is bound to inquire into the charge, and, if necessary, to punish. But if the charge be groundless, there is no valid distinction between the case of a Minister of the Crown and of an individual Member. The honour of an individual Member of this House is as precious to him as the honour of a Minister of the Crown; and if we lay down the rule that we are bound to defend the honour of a Minister of the Crown against an unfounded charge, I call upon the House to consider where the precedent will lead to. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has not confined his attacks altogether to the parties now chiming our aid, either in the House or out of it. I remember that a Session or two ago the hon. Member for Knaresborough made a strong attack upon the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden), whom he accused of violating the law, and acting in an illegal and disgraceful manner, imputing to him that he had acted contrary to law, by compelling parties to receive their wages on the truck system. Did the House dream of taking up that case? Not at all. The hon. Member's appeal, as the hon. Member for Bath supposed, was the only alternative to sending a second to arrange for a duel. [Mr. Roebuck—I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I did not say the only alternative.] The hon. Member for Bath seemed to think either that the House must take the matter up or that there must be a duel. [Mr. Roebuck—No, no.] I may have misunderstood, but I supposed the hon. Member to have stated that the House is bound to follow up this case as the best mode of getting rid of a duel. [Mr. Roebuck— No, No.] If the hon. Member did not so state, there is an end of that particular argument. But when the honour of an individual Member of the House was concerned, that Member brought down an entire contradiction of the whole thing; he carried the feeling of the House with him; and the punishment of the assailant, who had brought forward a charge he was totally unable to substantiate, was the proper one; he suffered the disgrace of having taken such a course and having made such a charge. But if it be said that every charge that is made, and that every bad construction that is put on a man's motives, either in this House or in speeches out of this House, is to be made matter of inquiry here, we shall establish a precedent which will be very inconvenient. This question has already taken up considerable time. Shall we on Friday next, when a question of the deepest national importance awaits discussion, waste the time of the House by an inquiry into this most trumpery charge? Are you not giving to it an importance which it does not deserve? Is it not better to show your utter contempt of it by passing it by? I am persuaded that in cases where the charge is utterly groundless, to pass it by unnoticed is to do what is best to stamp upon it the character it ought to bear in public opinion. If we do otherwise, we shall be establishing a precedent which may be used by a majority of this House to prevent inconvenient inquiries and the free criticism of matters deserving of great censure. Although we are all of opinion that the present is a groundless charge, the time may come when a minister of the Crown may have committed himself, and when charged with the fault, may come down, and seek to whitewash his character by a vote of this House that the charge is calumnious. These are the reasons which make me think that, upon the whole, it is better not to proceed. I admit that I originally entertained a different opinion but, having heard all that has been stated in this debate, I think that, upon the whole, the House will act more prudently by not carrying the matter further.

I will direct my observations to the question immediately before the House. I confess that I never heard any speech with more surprise than that of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The noble Lord has perverted every intention in these proceedings, and I rose after the noble Lord to put it to him, as a man of honour, whether he will oppose the Motion. He has argued as if Mr. Ferrand were the only man before the House. He has forgotten that against two Members of this House a charge has been made which has been by them laid upon the Table of the House, and against which, after due consideration, they ask your protection. What does the noble Lord say? "Let us proceed no further, but leave the matter altogether to Wimbledon-common, or some other place. No other alternative appears to me possible." The noble Lord alludes to the contrast between charges against Members and against Ministers in a public capacity. I do not believe there is one man in the House who can say he has been so attacked and calumniated out of the House as I have been. Did any man ever hear me for a moment complain? I treated the attacks with the utmost contempt, and it might have been a question whether this might not have been done in the present case. That, however, is not a question now. The case has been brought forward. An hon. Member has avowed that he made the charge, and has declared that he will not retract a single expression. Two Members of this House have made a complaint, and the noble Lord says that we ought to do nothing. The noble Lord cannot have heard the Motion; he must have entered the House during the discussion, and supposed that it is a resolution condemning the hon. Member for Knaresborough. There is no precedent of any case where the House has paid so much attention to the convenience or benefit of an individual. In every instance, Sir— and upon this point I appeal to you with confidence—when a paper like that read to-night has been laid on the Table, it has been deemed necessary to move that it was a libel, or to pass a Resolution condemnatory of the party who made use of the words charged. In the present in- stance, has not the right hon. Baronet stated, that he will not take the admission of the hon. Member, and that it may still be supposed he has spoken in haste? I asked the hon. Member if he would offer any explanation; he would not, he refused to do so. The right hon. Baronet wishes to give him another opportunity, and hopes that we shall take time. The House cannot leave the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Beverley, without its protection. Recollect that this statement was made at a public meeting, and that it was believed. The cheers by which it was followed shows that it was believed. Let hon. Members read with attention the account of its reception. Mr. Walter made a speech after the hon. Member, and he almost admits the fact that he was deemed a dangerous and troublesome man, and that measures were taken to unseat him. Mr. Ferrand has refused to submit to the opinion of the House. If the House now stops, it will be telling the public that Mr. Ferrand was right; they would have a right to believe that the right hon. Baronet did use his influence, and that the hon. Member for Beverley did lend himself to that influence. It will be said that they called for inquiry, and you shrunk from it. I say, that any man who votes for the previous question will condemn the two hon. Members. One of the charges against the right hon. Baronet was, that he used his influence with an official under him to make a false Report; if the other charge be not capable of proof, this at least is. I think that we are right in departing from the usual course, and not declaring at once that this is a libel, and I shall support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, because I consider it a wise, moderate, and proper course.

I have, Sir, made up my own mind not to give a vote upon this question: and if I had any doubt of the propriety of that course, the awful alternative described by the hon. Member for Montrose would have determined me that to vote would be most improper. I rise, however, to explain a single point on which the noble Lords and Members for Newark and for Sunderland, have misunderstood what fell from me last night, they supposed that I contended broadly that if any unfortunate misunderstanding existed between Members of this House affecting their private honour, it might be brought before this House for the purpose of vindicating their individual reputation. I made no such assertion. What I contended for, was, that when a charge is made by a Member against Members of this House in the discharge of their duty as Members, and when the charge impugns their integrity, their honour, and their characters as gentlemen, and when the Member preferring the accusation in his place persists in the charge, it is the imperative duty of the House to deal with the question, and to dispose of it by a vote of censure, or by an investigation of the charge. Will the House bear with me whilst I say that I agree in the general remarks of the noble Lord, the Member for Newark, that comments upon the acts of responsible Ministers of the Crown are not only to be tolerated, but that in this country they are the natural consequences of free discussion? I should be sorry to say anything in this case in the absence of the hon. Member for Knaresborough which may appear disrespectful to him, still I must say, that considering the circumstance of his accusation, and the quarter from whence it came, I did not much smart under it—and that I should not have been disposed to take a formal notice of it; but when the House has received distinct notice of such a charge—when the hon. Member, who has preferred it, has been asked to substantiate it—when twenty-four hours have been given him for deliberate consideration, and I was most anxious that this time should be given—when that hon. Member then says, not only that he made the charge, but that he adheres to it— when it has been stated by an hon. Member in his place in Parliament, that I have used my official power to procure a false report, the motive charged being, that I did so for the purpose of crushing a Member of this House—it is an accusation which relates to my conduct in this House, it relates to the freedom of debate; and mature reflection has led me to think that consistently' with my own honour, and consistently with the honour of this House, the matter cannot rest unnoticed. In the other charge I am implicated with my hon. Friend, the Member for Beverley. It is not a vague charge; it is, that my hon. Friend, acting more immediately in the exercise of his functions as a sworn Minister of this House, did not give an impartial judgment according to the evidence, but that I suborned my hon. Friend to violate his oath. That charge also does relate to our conduct as Members of this House— it has been re-asserted in this House—it is then, a charge, which, in my opinion, and the opinion of my hon. Friend coincided with my own, the hon. Member ought to be called upon to substantiate. I may be permitted also before leaving the House to add, that after a political life of long duration, I am conscious that I have said so many things, I may further declare I have done so many things, which upon calm reflection I must regret, and have regretted, that I do think upon all occasions some opportunity should be given to every hon. Gentleman to retract any hasty expression which he can retract consistently with his honor, and to atone for any injustice committed, which on reflection he may regret. I do, therefore, approve of the course proposed by my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Member for Knaresborough thinks that with perfect honour he can say, that he regrets what is passed; if Mr. Ferrand shall say, that he finds the whole of what he has charged upon me, and upon my hon. Friend, was brought forward in haste, and cannot be sustained; if he shall regret that he has wounded our feelings painfully, and did not intend to do it; and if he should express sorrow that in this House he adhered to a charge which he cannot substantiate, I for one, should hope that the House will accept his atonement; at least I shall be satisfied, and will banish from my mind every recollection of this matter. I hope, with the permission of the House, that I may now retire fully confiding in the wisdom and the justice of any decision, which the House may please to adopt.

I only wish to express my acquiescence in the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman. If upon further consideration the hon. Member shall attend in his place; if he shall say that he only intended to comment on my decision and my judgment, if that he never intended to say that I acted from improper motives; and if he shall express contrition on his part, and say he is sorry for the charge, I shall feel equal delight with my right hon. Friend, and every thing connected with this subject shall be wholly effaced from my mind.

I rise only to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners), whether, after what he has heard from the two hon. Gentlemen, he will press for a division of the House? It is of great consequence that we should consider this matter with temper. The noble Lord has declared his own opinion, and if he cannot agree in the course which the House may ultimately take, I think he may reserve the manifestation of his opinion till a future opportunity. It will be most important to the character of the proceedings of this House, if he can do this, and if without any violation of his feelings, he can withdraw his present Amendment.

after what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for London, the right hon. Baronet, and the hon. Member for Beverley, would withdraw his Amendment. He begged to disclaim the interpretation of the hon. Member for Bath, that he was favourable to the practice of duelling.

stated, that he had just met the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and had a conversation with him, but he had no authority from that Gentleman to make any statement to the House; at the same time, from what had passed, he was of opinion that the hon. Member would probably make such admissions as might satisfy the House, and the Gentlemen against whom he had brought accusations.

Motion "that the House will take the said complaint into consideration on Friday next," agreed to. It was also ordered that William Busfield Ferrand, Esq., do attend in his place on Friday.

rose, and moved for a list of the names omitted from the Special Jurors' List for the City of Dublin for the year 1844, who were residents in the parish of St. Audeon's, in the said City, though placed and allowed thereon by the right hon. the Recorder at the Revision of the Jurors List in 1843, together with copies of the letters addressed, pursuant to the order of the Recorder by the Clerks of the Peace for the said City, to William Kemmis, Esq., Crown Solicitor, and Pierce Mahony, Esq. Solicitor for the Traversers, in the case of the Queen v. O'Connell and others. Mr. French then stated, that considering this as a question of vital importance to the due administration of the law in Ireland, he would request the attention of the House to the fact, that notwithstanding the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had passed, in the 1st and 2nd of William IV., an Act for the Regulation of Jury Panels in Ireland, thereby extending to that country the benefits of the English law, yet even in the metropolis of Ireland, that law has not as yet been complied with; and that from such gross neglect on the part of the official authorities to whom the execution of the law was confided by the Legislature, the grievance he was now about to introduce to the notice of the House had arisen. Mr. French proceeded to state, that at least sixty-three names of Special Jurors placed on the Recorder's general list were omitted from the list out of which the Jury to try the cause of the Queen v. O'Connell and others had been selected— sixteen of whom have been admitted by all parties to have been persons who qualified as worth 5,000l. each, and all resident in one parish—St. Audeon's. The revision commenced on the 14th, and ended on the 24th of last November, and the omission of those names was not discovered until the 4th of January last. The explanation given was, that these names had been written on a slip of paper, containing the names of persons in St. Audeon's parish who qualified as being worth 5,000l., and that its loss was not discovered until about the 10th of January, the traverser's solicitors having in the mean time discovered not only the omission of those sixteen names; but also many others from said panel. Were he disposed, he might fairly comment on a statement made by the Clerks of the Peace, that this solitary sheet of paper remained on the table of their public office for a period of six weeks unnoticed by them, their clerks, or any one having daily business with them; while during that period three several Commissions had been discharged at their Court, and by their official assistance; one by the Judges, and two by the Recorder. But as affidavits of parties well conversant with the whole details of this extraordinary affair would soon be on the Table of that House, he would not make further comments at that time. However, he must now state to the House, that having considered the explanation given to Mr. Mahony by Mr. Archer's letter of the 11th January, the Recorder's speech in that House on a former occasion, and the affidavits made on the 20th instant by the clerks of the peace and Mr. Magrath, which reached London yesterday, he did not hesitate to say, that neither one nor all convinced him of the correctness of the explanations thus relied upon. The Lists spoken of by Mr. Magrath and the clerks of the peace must have been commenced in either of four ways—first, alphabetical; second, parochial; third, daily in the order in which parties appeared; fourth, classified according to rank. Now, he had examined the books which Mr. Magrath admits that Mr. Mahony holds, and made out by his permission. They are now in London, and confining himself to St. Andeon's parish the result is as follows;—Before the name of Mr. Caffrey on that list, and he being admitted to be the first on the draft list of 16, now called 15, there appear four special jurors in the letter C on that parish list before him, and all entitled to be special jurors; and two after him in the same letter. Now, in any alphabetical list commencing with Mr. Caffrey's name, it must be clear that at least the two names of persons equally qualified ought to follow his; and it remains to be explained why he also parted company not only with them, but the four who preceded him. Yet he stands alone between the four who preceded his name, and the two which follow after him on the same list. So much for letter C. As to letter D in the same list for St. Audeon's, there appear five special jurors, four of whom should have appeared in connection with his name, and yet they are omitted. As to letter E, there appear to have been only four names, and three only as special jurors; out of those three one was originally returned to the Recorder, and he added two; yet all were omitted, and Mr. Magrath admits that they are amongst his list of 16. These observations apply equally to other names with which he did not wish to trouble the House. It is enough to say, that the missing names cover also the letters F., H., M,, R., W., and Y.; and it is remarkable that the last name, Mr. Johnston Young, was a special juror returned for 1843, and for three years before a grand juror, &c, and yet Mr. Magrath seems specially to omit him, and place him in company with Mr. Caffrey, with so many preceding persons beyond 15, all qualified to serve as special jurors. As to the list having been made parochially, that is absurd on the face of the explanations now before this House and the public. Missing slips from eight parishes would be necessary to account for the sixty-three names. As to the sixteen forming portions of a daily list, by which it might be supposed that the missing jurors in the list of 16 came up to be recorded as special jurors, the hon. Gen- tleman stated, on the authority of Mr. Mahony, that it was impossible, as they did not come up together, or even on the same day. The only remaining mode of reconciling the allegations as to those lists by the Clerks of the Peace and Mr. Magrath is, that the supposed list of persons qualified as worth 5,000l., is equally unsatisfactory, for it appears that the taking of such a list would run thus:—1. Henry Coghran; 2. Nicholas James Caffrey; 3. William Deane, sen.; 4. William Deane, jun.; 5. James Duggan; 6. John D'Arcy; 7. Hugh Duffy; 8. James Egan; 9. Thomas Egan; 10. Charles Egan; 11. George Faulkner; 12. Edward Gallivan; 13. Thomas Hannisson; 14. Patrick Hayes; 15. Richard Hayes; and yet out of all those names, and taken in the order in which they stand qualified in the list, as revised for the parish of St. Audeon's, only six appear on Mr. Magrath's draft list.

House counted out, and adjourned till Friday.