IPSWICH ELECTION—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. (Hansard, 22 July 1835)

§ Mr. Williams Wynn
brought up the Report of the Committee on the Ipswich election, and moved that it be read, which was done as follows:— Your Committee have experienced considerable difficulty in this inquiry, from the apprehension of prejudging a criminal charge now in progress to trial by due course of law; but they have come to the following Resolution:—

1. That it does not appear to the Committee, that the conduct of the Magistrates, Samuel Bignold and Edward Temple Booth, Esquires, before whom the said John Pilgrim was charged, was a breach of the privileges of this House.

2. That it appears to the Committee; that Thomas More Keith aided and abetted the procuring and continuing the absence of John Pilgrim, to prevent his giving evidence on the 871 Petition against the Ipswich election; and that he used the charge of embezzlement as a means of inducing Pilgrim to remain in concealment for the same purpose.

3. That on Pilgrim's return to Norwich, an information was laid against him for embezzlement, which had the effect of delaying obedience to the Chairman's summons, and his attendance before the Committee of the Ipswich election; but that it does not appear to the Committee, from the evidence before them, that there is any proof that these proceedings were taken for the purpose of producing such delay.

4. That it does not appear to the Committee, from the evidence before them, that any charge is proved against Joseph Sewell John Blake, or John Joseph Blake.

Your Committee cannot conclude their Report without adverting to the service of a summons from a Chairman of an Election Committee, for the purpose of obtaining the attendance of a person in custody:—They apprehend that the most usual course is to resort to the House for an Order, to be expressed by the Speaker's warrant to that effect.

§ Mr. Hume,
in accordance with what he believed to be the invariable rule, thought he might move, that the gentleman reported against (Mr. Thomas More Keith) should be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

§ Mr. Williams Wynn,
as chairman of the Committee, begged to say, that he hoped the House would proceed to read the evidence itself, before it decided upon inflicting punishment on any individual.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
observed, that on the former occasion, the House had proceeded to commit individuals, and thus far proceeded to punishment without having the opportunity of reading the evidence, and this in cases when there was a doubt as to the facts established respecting the conduct of individuals amounting to a breach of privilege. In this Report, however, a distinct offence was stated; there could not, therefore, now, as before, be a doubt put forth as to the breach of privilege.

§ Mr. Hume
quite concurred with his hon. Friend, and would move that Mr. Keith be forthwith taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, agreeably to the Report.

§ Sir Robert Inglis
hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion that evening.

§ Mr. Hume
would assent to the request if he did not feel that this might prove an obstruction to the course of justice.

§ Mr. Sinclair
thought, that the House 872 ought to have the opportunity of seeing the evidence in the first instance. He apprehended that the great object of appointing the Committee was to get the evidence.

§ Mr. Wilks
thought the duties of the Committee went much further than the collection of evidence. They were also to have formed an opinion of the conduct of certain individuals. They had done so, and reported their deliberate decision. It would be ridiculous to ask the Committee to go into the inquiry unless they were prepared to act upon its judgment when reported.
On the suggestion of Sir J. Wrottesley, the Resolutions were again read to the House distinctly.

§ Mr. Williams Wynn
said, there was great difference of opinion amongst the members of the Committee, respecting the Report, and as to the appointment of the Committee, he considered it to be to save the trouble and the time of the House, which would be the result of an examination at the Bar. The Committee had been directed to report the evidence to the House. What would be the use of this, if the discretion were to be altogether left to the Committee? If, indeed, a witness refused to give evidence before a Committee, or persisted in prevaricating, it was a positive obstruction to the business, upon which they might well appeal to the authority of the House; but "aiding and abetting" in preventing a witness from giving evidence were such general terms, applicable to such varieties of culpability, that before they entertained any question of punishment, he was decidedly of opinion that the House ought to have the evidence before them. Besides it should be known that the decision of the majority turned on opposing testimony, which the House ought to be empowered to judge of from its own consideration. No great loss of time would take place, inasmuch as the evidence might be printed from day to day. He did not mean to anticipate that the decision of the House upon the evidence would be different from that arrived at by the majority of the Committee; but it certainly would be more satisfactory to him, as Chairman, and he should suppose to the country, if the House would be good enough to judge for itself after examination of the evidence.

§ Mr. Patrick M. Stewart
differed altogether with the right hon. Gentleman in 873 the opinion he had expressed. He did not see how they could now consistently deviate from the course they had formerly pursued when individuals were implicated by the Report of the Ipswich Committee over which he presided as Chairman. Before the first Committee Mr. Keith had been examined at great length. They had accompanied him from Norwich to Calais. They had heard everything which he had to urge in explanation. They were at that time unable to trace Mr. Pilgrim in his progress. It was in consequence of the suspicious circumstances which struck them, and which they intimated, that the second inquiry took place. The evidence respecting Keith's conduct before the Committee which had just reported, must have been, in all material points, similar to that which had been already given, and under all the circumstances, he agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex in thinking that Keith ought to be committed at, once to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to be afterwards dealt with as they might see fit.

§ Mr. William Miles,
addressing the House as a member of the Committee, informed them that there was something in Mr. Keith's case which might well induce them to postpone the consideration of the question for a short time. A medical certificate had been sent in, showing that Mr. Keith was extremely ill; and about his case there was a peculiar delicacy to which he would not further allude. Under these circumstances it would be most distressing to have him brought up at once.

§ Mr. Hume
was actuated by no vindictive feelings; he was merely anxious that justice should be done, and that the forms of the House be complied with. After the committal the House might deal with Mr. Keith as it thought proper.

Sir Matthew White Ridley
thought, that under the peculiar circumstances, it would be as well to suspend for a short time the committal of Mr. Keith to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

§ Lord John Russell
was by no means certain that by taking the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Miles) the illness of Mr. Keith would be increased. Under all the circumstances, however, he should propose that the case be put off until Friday.

§ Mr. Hawes
said, the Report of the Committee would be justified by the evidence. If anything beyond that which 874 had appeared from the medical certificate had transpired, he should at once accede to the proposition for delay, although his own impression was, that the sooner the case was disposed of, the better would it be for Mr. Keith, whose apprehension of consequences would be kept alive and increased by the delay.

§ Mr. Patrick M. Stewart
begged to say a few words upon a matter personal to himself. In the last paragraph of the Report just printed by the right hon. Gentleman, allusion was made to the fact of his having signed a warrant as Chairman of the Committee, which was declared to be unusual and out of order, and which he now believed he had no right to do. The fact was, as he had before stated, that Mr. Pilgrim was travelling about, and could neither be traced abroad nor at home. He had signed and sent off five or six summonses, one of which at last caught. Pilgrim at Norwich, and when he was in the act of obeying it, his portmanteau being on the mail-coach and his foot on the step, he was arrested by the warrant of the magistrates of Norwich. He then, on learning this, after having some consultation but not conference sufficiently formal with the Committee, signed a warrant to have the body of Pilgrim brought before the Committee, which warrant he subsequently found he had no right to sign, as a Chairman could only sign summonses. So far he pleaded guilty. He should have applied to the House, and obtained the signature of the Speaker to the warrant. If he had done so, Pilgrim might have been here a couple of days sooner, and some time thus be saved; but otherwise the course of the Committee had not at all been affected by this proceeding.

§ Mr. Williams Wynn
had meant nothing disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman. The Committee were only anxious to prevent a question being raised in consequence of the proceedings of the hon. Gentleman, or a precedent being established.

§ Sir Broke Vere
moved, that John Eddowes Sparrowe be called to the Bar, with a view to his being discharged forthwith.

§ Mr. Aglionby
opposed the Motion, Many more innocent men had been kept for a much longer time in Newgate than six weeks. That person had been guilty of great offences against the dignity and privileges of the House, and he should 875 like to know on what grounds any clemency should be displayed towards him. He for one should divide against the Motion, if the sense of the House were taken on the subject. Sparrowe had been guilty of the grossest abuse of the rights and freedom of election, and he hoped that person might be detained in Newgate until the end of the Session.

§ Mr. Hume
concurred with the hon. Member. He thought they should be furnished with some good reasons for extending their clemency to Sparrowe. When an appeal was made lately on behalf of the Dorchester labourers, who were ignorant, and so far as they knew, innocent men, little disposition was shown to grant mercy to them. He thought, that the detention of Sparrowe until the end of the Session would be a very moderate punishment.

Dr. Lushington,
after stating the offence of which Sparrowe had been guilty, and declaring its enormity, went on to say, that still it was a serious question whether this man should be detained longer. He could not but feel in all these cases, that the House was acting in the double capacity of prosecutor and judge, and he thought that instead of proceeding in the present manner, it would be much better to bring in a Bill to Parliament, ordering that offences of this nature should be punishable by a jury and by judges, whose passions were not like those of Members of the House in any way engaged in the inquiry. If he were asked was six weeks' imprisonment in Newgate an adequate punishment for Sparrowe's offence, he should reply not. But if he were asked what he considered was the wisest and most discreet course which the House of Commons should pursue, he should say that they had better not proceed to the utmost extremity of the punishment in their power, but, on the contrary, discharge the individual forthwith. He thought this latter was the course which would best vindicate the character, dignity, and honour of the House in the eyes of the community. He would suggest also that it would be unwise to exhaust their whole power of punishment on the present case; what were they to do, if one of a more aggravated description appeared before them?

§ Sir Robert Peel
could not concur in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the House. For one, he should be very unwilling to 876 transfer to any other tribunal the power of enforcing the authority of that House. He much feared that if they parted with the power of vindicating their own orders, they would greatly weaken their privileges, and encourage a contempt for their authority. In the case of the Dorchester labourers, what he had contended was, that the Crown should decide, and not that House; but the case was very different here, for here the punishment had been inflicted by order of the House itself; and without impugning the power of the House, any hon. Member might with perfect consistency vote for the release of the two individuals in question. The only question then for consideration was, whether the end of punishment being to deter others from offences similar to that on which punishment was inflicted, the imprisonment of six weeks in Newgate was sufficient to deter others from committing a similar offence. In his opinion it was, and on this feeling he should vote for the discharge.

§ Mr. Patrick M. Stewart
concurred in what had been said by the right hon. Baronet as far as regarded Sparrowe. He thought he had undergone a sufficient punishment, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Aglionby) would not press his Amendment.

§ Mr. Aglionby
said, that he had not moved any Amendment. He had merely said, that he would oppose the discharge at present.

§ Mr. Righy Wason
said, he would vote for the release of Sparrowe; but he thought a distinction should be made between his case and that of Clipperton, who had refused to answer questions put to him by the Committee.

§ Lord John Russell
said, he could not concur in the view taken of the case by his hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Lushington), that the House ought to go to a Court of Law to enforce its authority. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that such a course would greatly impair and weaken the authority of the House. He also admitted, that no good end could be answered by continuing Mr. Sparrowe in confinement, for that his imprisonment had been sufficiently long to deter others from the commission of a similar offence. Without saying what course he should be prepared to take with respect to Mr. Clipperton, he would vote that Mr. Sparrowe be brought up and discharged.

§ Mr. Aglionby,
after what had been stated, would not divide the House on the Question.

§ Mr. Freshfield
then moved, that John Clipperton be brought to the Bar to-morrow and discharged. After the intimation given on the other side, he felt it necessary to state, that in his view of Mr. Clipperton's case, it was much less aggravated than that of some others who had been placed at the Bar. Mr. Clipperton had no connexion with the election at Ipswich. He acted solely as the legal agent of the sitting men, and he had refused to tell matters which had come to his knowledge in a confidential manner from his client.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
contended, that there was no ground whatever for saying that Clipperton was less guilty than others. In his (Mr. Wason's) opinion, he was much more so. The statements in his petition were contradicted by his own evidence before the Committee. On this ground, and also on the ground that he had refused to answer questions put to him by the Committee, he would oppose the Motion for his discharge.

§ Sir John Wrottesley
thought they ought to wait in this case, as in that of Mr. Keith, till they had the evidence of the Committee before them; for it was possible that by that evidence, Mr. Clipperton might be convicted of another breach of privilege, which would justify his being sent again to prison, He would suggest, therefore, that the debate be adjourned to Friday.

§ Mr. Harvey
could not concur in the extraordinary principle of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Staffordshire. It would be quite time enough to consider what further punishment should be inflicted on Mr. Clipperton, when they had evidence before them sufficient to convict him, if any such existed. For his own part, he would vote for the discharge of both parties, seeing that the House had allowed the most guilty parties to escape. As to the punishment by six weeks' imprisonment, it was idle to talk of that as such, where the party enjoyed every comfort. How different had been the case with the Dorchester labourers. But the labouring classes met with no sympathy in that House. He repeated, that when magistrates gave a punishment of two or three 878 years' imprisonment to poor labourers for trying to get the highest price for their labour, he was justified in saying, that the poor had little or no sympathy shown for them in that place, the more particularly when he found that an imprisonment of a few weeks was considered much too severe for an offence greater in itself, and much worse in its consequences, than that of the poor labourers. These were dangerous things to be told amongst the poorer classes. If Mr. Clipperton had told the whole truth, his client would have been disgraced.

§ Mr. Richards
said, that the hon. Member for Southwark seemed to assume that he and those on his side of the House were alone the friends of the working classes, and as though he were the only person who had ever done any good to the labouring portion of the community. He should be glad to know what good the hon. Member had ever done for them. He should beg of the hon. Member in future to deal with more respect towards those who, with himself (Mr. Richards), at present occupied the Opposition benches.

§ Lord John Russell
concurred in the view taken by the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Sir J. Wrottesley), and hoped that the debate would be adjourned to Friday next.

§ Mr. Freshfield
said, that even admitting that Mr. Clipperton had been guilty of a crime, it should not be forgotten that he had already suffered severe punishment, even after expressing deep contrition to the House for the conduct with which he was charged. In his petition, he set forth that he knew nothing but what had reached him in his professional character, and that he felt himself bound not to disclose. He begged further to state, that he was as incapable of a quibble as the hon. Member for Ipswich, and he, in the strongest terms that the usage of Parliament would permit, denied the imputation of having placed any quibbling construction on the facts of the case. If Mr. Clipperton were longer kept in custody, it would be a case of the greatest hardship of which he had any remembrance.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
was understood to say, that he had not used any language which could, except by a forced construction, raise any imputation of a quibble as against the hon. Member for Penryn. If he had used any such language, he could only say it was accidental, He believed 879 that he had not done so, and the hon. Member had no right to put a forced construction upon words used by any other hon. Member.

The Earl of Darlington
expressed his astonishment at the course which in this case the hon. Member for Ipswich had pursued. He observed, that it was with extreme regret that he saw any hon. Member of that House acting with that vindictive spirit which the hon. Member for Ipswich was now doing. In no other place but the House of Commons would it be allowed to any man to act as judge, as it were, in his own case. It was not for him to comment upon the conduct of any hon. Gentleman, but he could not avoid expressing his sorrow that the hon. Member for Ipswich should have been tempted to pursue such a course as he had in this instance adopted. He however left it to the hon. Gentleman's own sense of propriety to decide whether or not he thought himself justified in that course.

§ Mr. Wason.
—The noble Lord, although prompted by the hon. Member for Knaresborough—

The Earl of Darlington
said—I beg to call the hon. Member for Ipswich to order. The hon. Member for Knaresborough did not say a single word to me. Do not speak that which is false.

§ Mr. Wason
rose, amidst continued cries of "Order" "Chair," but resumed his seat on

§ The Speaker
stating, that he hoped the noble Lord would explain the observations which he had just made.

The Earl of Darlington
said, he was sorry if he had made use of any expressions which were improper; at the same time, when an hon. Member attributed words to him, or stated that he was prompted, when the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had never addressed a word to him, he could not avoid repelling the insinuation in the strongest terms.

§ The Speaker
was sure the noble Lord would after a moment's reflection see that he had used terms which were offensive and contrary to the rules of the House.

The Earl of Darlington
said, that he was sorry if he had been guilty of any expressions that were offensive, but he trusted that he might be allowed to say that the hon. Member for Ipswich had first stated that which was offensive to him (the Earl of Darlington).

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
said, that of course the noble Lord had a right to remark upon the terms which any hon. Member had used, but he (Mr. Wason) in the observation which he had made had meant nothing offensive to the noble Lord. He had certainly seen the hon. member for Knaresborough turn round, and as he thought speaking to the noble Lord while he was addressing the House. If the noble Lord now said that he had not been prompted by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, of course that statement was sufficient and conclusive. What he (Mr. Wason) had further meant to state was this—that when the noble Lord stated that he (Mr. Wason) acted upon vindictive feelings, if he (Mr. Wason) chose to state the noble Lord had said that which he (the noble Lord) knew to be untrue, he should use language which was unparliamentary, but he would now state that in saying he was actuated by vindictive feelings the noble Lord said that which was untrue.

§ The Speaker
called the hon. Member for Ipswich to order and to explain.

§ Mr. Wason
The noble Lord had stated that I am actuated by vindictive feelings. I say this is untrue. If that is unparliamentary language, of course as unparliamentary language I retract it. How could the noble Lord possibly know the feelings which actuated his (Mr. Wason's) breast? He knew those feelings, and must repeat that the assertion was untrue. [Renewed cries of "Order, order," and loud calls upon the Earl of Darlington from the Ministerial benches.]

§ Mr. Williams Wynn
said it was manifestly contrary to the rules of the House for one hon. Member to charge another with vindictive feelings, or to attribute to him motives in the course which he was pursuing. Under such circumstances he was sure his noble Friend would do that which the House would expect—namely, retract the assertion he had made, and he was also satisfied the hon. Member for Ipswich would, on his part, do the same.

The Earl of Darlington
stated, that if he had said any thing which was unparliamentary, or which was offensive to the House, he was very ready to retract those expressions. Having said that, he thought the hon. Member opposite ought, on his part to follow the course which he (the Earl of Darlington) was perfectly ready to pursue.

§ The Speaker
was understood, to say that 881 the noble Lord by attributing vindictive feelings to the hon. Member for Ipswich had used unparliamentary language. He understood the noble Lord now to retract the offensive expressions, and he supposed the hon. Member for Ipswich would not hesitate to withdraw those which he had applied to the noble Lord.

The Earl of Darlington
repeated that he was ready to withdraw the expressions which he had used, if the hon. Member for Ipswich would follow his example.

§ Mr. Wason
The noble Lord says that if I will do so and so, he will do so and so. That apology I will not accept, either in this House, or out of it.

§ Lord John Russell
rose and said, that in confirmation of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn), and from the Chair, he begged to state that the first disorderly expression was that in which the noble Lord had attributed vindictive feelings to the hon. Member for Ipswich, and therefore, he (Lord John Russell) conceived that the noble Lord would pay that respect which was due to the House, and retract the offensive expressions without any condition whatever. The insinuation which the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Wason) had made, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had prompted the noble Lord, might be offensive to the feelings of the noble Lord, but it was not an offence against the rules and orders of the House. He himself did not see any reason to find fault with the remark made by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

§ Mr. Richards
admitted, that while the noble Lord was speaking he had observed that Clipperton had a wife and a large family, and that so far he had prompted the noble Lord. It would appear, however, that the noble Lord had not heard him, and therefore his observation had fallen to the ground. The noble Lord had said, as he understood him, not that the hon. Member for Ipswich was actuated by vindictive feelings, but that he appeared to be so actuated.

Mr. Goulburn
said, that his noble Friend had already stated, that if he had used any offensive expressions, he begged to retract them. His noble Friend had most distinctly made that admission, and he could not conceive what further apology could be required from his noble Friend.

§ The Speaker
said, that he had understood the noble Lord, on his being in- 882 formed that it was not competent to couple any conditions with his retraction, to have generally withdrawn the offensive expressions used by him.

§ Sir Robert Price
said, that as there appeared to be some misunderstanding on that head, perhaps the noble Lord would have the kindness to satisfy the wishes of the House by stating again that which many had already understood him to have stated—namely, that he retracted the expressions which all allowed was contrary to the rules of the House. That being done, he was sure the hon. Member for Ipswich would not for a single moment refuse to do that which the House generally desired—he meant, withdraw the expressions which he also had used.

The Earl of Darlington
was in hopes that he had made himself clearly understood by the whole House. He was at a loss to know what further to state, to satisfy the House. He repealed, it was not his intention to give offence, and that if he had used any offensive expressions, he was ready to retract them, and that as the hon. Gentleman opposite had also made use of expressions equally offensive to him (the Earl of Darlington), he thought it not asking too much if he called on the hon. Member also to retract them. He (the Earl of Darlington) was ready to make an apology for any expressions he had used, provided the hon. Gentleman did the same.

§ Lord Sandon
said, that the difficulty still remained by the noble Lord still insisting upon the qualification to his explanation. The offence of which the noble Lord had been guilty was to the House, and to the House an apology was due, without qualification.

§ Mr. Dominick Browne
had listened most attentively to the Debate, and he well remembered the noble Lord had stated that that which the hon. Gentleman had stated was false.

The Earl of Darlington
If I made use of that expression, I beg to retract it.

§ Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, that as the first offender had retracted, the second ought also to withdraw the offensive expressions used by him. By this course, perfect order and the dignity of the House would be restored and established.

§ Mr. Warburton
only understood the noble Lord to have retracted the word "false," and not the words attributing vindictiveness to the Member for Ipswich.

An hon. Member
on the Opposition benches said, that he had distinctly understood the noble Lord to have retracted all the expressions which were offensive to the rules of the House.

§ The Speaker
was understood to observe, that in his opinion the noble Lord had retracted generally the expressions which he had used unconditionally, and without qualification, and therefore he thought the House would concur with him in calling upon the hon. Member for Ipswich to do the same.

§ Mr. Wason
[after repeated calls from all sides of the House] rose and said, he could only state exactly what appeared to him to be the circumstances of the case, and then leave it to the House to say whether he was right or whether he was wrong. When he had got up to reply to the noble Lord's first observations, that he (Mr. Wason) was actuated by vindictive feelings, he bad said, that the noble Lord had been prompted by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, to which the noble Lord had replied, that it was false. Now, the hon. Member for Knaresborough had told the House, that it was true, for he had admitted that he did prompt the noble Lord. [Repeated cries of "no, no," from the Opposition.] He (Mr. Wason) had then understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Montgomeryshire, to have called upon the noble Lord to retract the word "false," which he (Mr. Wason) had also understood the noble Lord to do without the slightest equivocation. He (Mr. Wason) then went on to answer the term "vindictive feelings," and in doing so he had used expressions which the House held to be unparliamentary; upon which the Member for Montgomeryshire again rose, and informed the noble Lord, that it was unparliamentary to attribute motives or feelings to any hon. Member. The noble Lord then said that he was willing to apologize to the House, provided he (Mr. Wason) did the same. His answer to this was that which he now repeated—namely, that he would never accept an apology to which any condition was fixed.

The Earl of Darlington
said, that the hon. Member in the statement of the facts which he had just made, had seemed to allege, that he (the Earl of Darlington) had stated that which was false, because it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman persisted in asserting that he had 884 been prompted by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. That hon. Member might have turned round towards him while he was speaking, but he declared upon his honour that he did not hear anything which the hon. Member for Knaresborough might have said. He (the Earl of Darlington) was therefore most certainly a little surprised to be charged with having been prompted; but with regard to the offensive expressions he had used, he was ready to retract them. If the hon. Member could prove that he had not used, subsequently any expressions offensive to him, he (the Earl of Darlington) would have no right to require from him an apology. It, however, seemed to him that the hon. Member had used expressions of a similarly offensive tendency, and he therefore thought it was no more than common courtesy that the hon. Member should also retract them.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
I never meant to impute to the noble Lord an intention to deceive the House. I only alluded to the admission of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in order to show that I did not speak without some foundation when I said that that hon. Member had prompted the noble Lord.

§ Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
observed that the noble Lord had in his opinion unequivocally retracted every-thing. The words "vindictive feelings" were certainly of significant import in comparison with other words; but the noble Lord had since made a most unqualified retraction. These words were followed by words of similar import from the hon. Member for Ipswich; and he (Mr. C. Fergusson) thought that, hon. Member was bound to make an equally unqualified retraction.

§ Mr. Rigby Wason
I understand that the noble Lord has retracted the expression imputing to me falsehood, without any condition. Of course, therefore, without any mixture of reserve or equivocation on my part, I also retract the expression used by me towards the noble Lord.

§ Mr. Aglionby
expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Freshfield) would consent to postpone the further debate on the petition before the House until Friday next. The evidence showed that Mr. Clipperton was not worthy of any favour at the hands of the House.

§ Mr. Williams Wynn,
if the question went to a division, should vote in favour of the postponement of the discussion.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
hoped, when the right hon. Chairman of the Committee advocated the postponement of the discussion, his hon. Friend would see the propriety of adjourning the debate.

§ Mr. Freshfield,
thus appealed to, would agree to the adjournment of further debate on the question, until Friday next.