HC Deb 03 June 1835 vol 28 cc485-503
Mr. Hume

rose to call the attention of the House to some proceedings which took place in the House at a very late hour in the course of the debate of last night. He did so because he considered it to be the duty of every man who bad the honour of a seat in the House to endeavour to promote order and regularity in its proceedings. Although on some occasions during the many years he had sat in the House he might probably have violated the decorum of debate, and, led away by the warmth of argument, have casually indulged in language which it was improper to persevere in, he must say that never on any occasion when he thought himself in the wrong had he hesitated to avow his error, and he had been always ready, even though he might not have considered himself wrong, to bow to the decision of the Chair and the House, because in such cases he thought that the party concerned was not likely to form so correct a judgment as cool and dispassionate individuals. It would be recollected that that morning, at the close of the debate, the hon. Member for Ludlow rose from a seat behind the place where he (Mr. Hume) now stood, and persevered in addressing the House, contrary, as it appeared to him, to its wish. Whilst the hon. Gentleman was in the midst of that Address, in allusion to what had just fallen from the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, he stated that "the noble Lord had proved that the system of Vote by Ballot had failed in the United States." At that moment his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, was sitting by him (Mr. Hume), and he made an observation to his hon. Friend, who, as well as himself, had heard what the noble Lord said on the subject. His (Mr. Hume's) opinion on the Ballot was well known, and he had restrained himself with some difficulty from following the noble Lord, for he certainly felt a great desire to expose the fallacies of his argument. When the hon. Member for Ludlow made use of the words referred to, he (Mr. Hume) said to his hon. and learned Friend, "No such thing has been proved." Upon which the hon. Gentleman stopping in the midst of his speech, addressed him, and said, very warmly, "Hold your tongue, Sir." He replied to this singular address of the hon. Gentleman, "I will not hold my tongue; I am not speaking to you." The hon. Gentleman rejoined, "If you don't, I'll make you, Sir; I say if you don't hold your tongue, I'll make you; you are an impertinent fellow; we don't want any radicalism or any republicanism here." He then turned round, and again replying to the hon. Gentleman, said, "You are an impertinent fellow, do you hold your tongue." He spoke this with some warmth, and was near rising to make use of his hands on the occasion, but respect for the House kept him down. Nothing more passed between himself and the hon. Gentleman personally; and for his part, he thought that the offence had been offered on the part of the hon Gentleman, and not by him. He had to move for some returns, and remained in the House after the close of the debate for that purpose; while waiting in his place, the hon. Member for Wenlock came to him and said he wished to speak to him outside on the subject of what had passed between the hon. Member for Ludlow and him. He accordingly after he had finished his business went out, when a letter, which he now held in his hand, was given to him. It was as follows:— House of Commons, Tuesday Night. Sir,—I heard you make use of the words 'impertinent fellow' when I was speaking. I believe that you meant to apply those words to me, but, for fear of any mistake, I desire I may know immediately whether you did or not, I am Sir, your humble servant,

E. L. CHARLTON."

"Joseph Hume, Esq."

The Gentleman who handed him the letter said he hoped that he (Mr. Hume) would retract the expression complained of, but this he declined to do, on the ground that the hon. Member for Ludlow had commenced the attack, and that he himself had the best right to complain. On his way out after the close of the business of the House he was met by the same hon. Member from whom he had received the foregoing communication. The hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Charlton was not satisfied with the manner in which his letter had been received, and he hoped for a different answer. He (Mr. Hume) said that "he had no other answer to give tonight;" upon which the hon. Gentleman asked "Will you not name a friend to meet me on the subject?" He told the hon. Member that "he would not, and had no other answer to give." He then walked away and thought, no more of the matter imagining that the hon. Gentleman's warmth would be sobered down by a little reflection in the course of the night. However, it appeared he was mistaken, for at 10 o'clock this morning he received two letters on the subject. The first was in the following terms:— Hyde-park Barracks, June 3, 1835. Sir,—The enclosed letter, which I have just received from Mr. Charlton, I lose no time in forwarding to you, and which, in compliance with his request, I shall publish in the evening papers of this day. I am, Sir, &c, &c,

C. FORESTER."

"Joseph Hume, Esq.

This was the enclosure:— Fendall's Hotel, Palace-yard, 3 o'clock Wednesday morning. Sir,—"I am just informed by Mr. Forester that you have refused to give him any answer to my letter, that you have refused likewise to enter into any explanation, or name any friend with whom he might confer. Under these circumstances, I regret that I am reduced to the necessity of publicly declaring what I conceive the world will justify me in doing—namely, that you have rendered yourself, by your unmanly and cowardly behaviour, wholly unworthy of the title of a Gentleman. I am, Sir, &c, &c,

E. L. CHARLTON." Joseph Hume, Esq.

After he had eaten his breakfast he considered that it was quite possible he might have been mistaken, and said something wrong in the heat of the moment, and therefore he immediately wrote a letter to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, who sat next to him during the debate, and heard all that passed. The note to the hon. Member stated, that he (Mr. Roebuck) was sitting by his side last night, when Mr. Charlton made an unwarrantable attack on him, and asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to state the precise words used on that occasion, which he must be able to do, as he had called the hon. Member for Ludlow to order. The letter went on to state, that the writer had not been able to see Mr. Roebuck in the House after the transaction, and that, not wishing to depend entirely on his own recollection, he now asked Mr. Roebuck to state the substance of the whole conversation. Mr. Roebuck's answer stated, that he now transmitted an account of what took place last night between Mr. Charlton and Mr. Hume, and declared that a more unprovoked insult the writer had never witnessed than that offered by the former Gentleman to the latter. Their conversation had really no reference to Mr. Charlton, though it was suggested by what that Gentleman said. He could only account for the extraordinary conduct of Mr. Charlton on the ground of anger. The letter contained a memorandum stating that "Mr. Charlton observed in the course of his speech, that Lord Stanley had clearly proved that the Ballot had failed in America, upon which we began conversing with each other as to the tried efficiency of the system of the Ballot in the United States. Mr. Charlton immediately exclaimed, addressing Mr. Hume in a sharp and imperious tone, 'Hold your tongue, Sir; if you want to say any thing on the subject, you can reply to me.' Mr. Hume said,'I'll not hold my tongue; I am not speaking to you.' Mr. Charlton rejoined, 'Yes, but you shall hold your tongue, Sir, I'll make you hold your tongue; you are an impertinent fellow; we want no republicanism here.' Here Mr. Hume turned round and said with some warmth, 'Do you hold your tongue; you are an impertinent fellow.' Mr. Harvey, who was sitting near, turned about, and exclaimed, 'Shame, shame, Mr. Charlton.' I then rose for the purpose of calling Mr. Charlton to order, and the House knows what passed afterwards. He thought, however, the hon. Member for Middlesex, continued, that owing to the confusion which prevailed, the House might not know precisely what had occurred, and therefore he would state the circumstances. The hon. Member for Bath rose to order, so did he, but at that moment the attention of the Speaker was occupied in calling for silence in other parts of the House, and he (Mr. Hume) stood for some time without catching the right hon. Gentleman's eye. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) near him appeared from his manner to think the matter scarcely worth further notice, and the Speaker said, "that these interruptions were extremely improper." Thinking that the observation might perhaps apply to himself, he sat down without attempting to pursue the subject. He now put it to the House to consider in what situation a Member must be placed if he were to be liable to such interruptions and attacks as had occurred in this case. He had done nothing to outrage the House or offend the hon. Member. Was it to be tolerated for a single moment, because an hon. Gentleman was angry, or perhaps felt desirous of notoriety in the newspapers, that another hon. Member was liable to be called out to be shot at and have a ball sent through his head, by way of affording an hon. Gentleman satisfaction; or would it be any satisfaction to him to send a ball through the hon. Member's head on such an occasion? There were instances, he knew, where there was no alternative but a resort to the laws of honour, and he did not condemn persons who, in situations of absolute necessity, complied with an established practice; but was it to be endured that in a deliberative assembly, if a man could not convince his opponent by argument, he was to settle the point in dispute by shooting him? He then had a just ground of complaint against the hon. Member, although that individual appeared to think differently. He dared to say, that the hon. Gentleman might have thought it would look well to see a correspondence between Mr. Charlton and Mr. Hume in the newspapers. Perhaps that was the hon. Gentleman's motive; but, however that might be, he thought the present a course which the House ought not to sanction. While he had been in the House, and on more occasions than one, he had always felt it to be his duty, and to be most consistent with the honour and character of the House, to accede to the principle, that whatever took place in the House should, if it required explanation, be explained in the House. He was only now acting in accordance with the spirit and principle which had actuated him in that House during the last twenty years. He threw himself on the House on this occasion, and having stated the circumstances of the case, he did not hesitate to say, that if there was any Member more quiet than another during the debate of last night, it was himself. He had kept his seat, and did not rise during the discussion, except once in the earlier period of the evening, when he did not succeed in catching the Speaker's eye. He complained of being attacked in this manner, when he was not giving offence to the hon. Gentleman, and thought that he was now only doing his duty in stating the circumstances of the case, and leaving it to the decision of the House.

Mr. Lechmere Charlton

rose on this occasion, as the House might easily suppose, under feelings of considerable apprehension, occasioned not through fear of the course taken by the hon. Member for Middlesex, but through a fear lest, suddenly called on, as he now was, and without an opportunity of consulting his Friends who sat near him last night, he might not be able to bring his case before the House in the same way as the hon. Gentleman who had brought down a prepared statement of the circumstances. However, he thought it sufficient for him to state (as far as his justification was concerned), on his honour as a Gentleman—on his honour as a Member of the House—in the strongest language that a man could make use of, and still be within the limits of the Parliamentary rule and usage, that what the hon. Member for Middlesex had just stated was not true. [Order.] It was exceedingly unfair in any Member to say he was out of order. Was he to submit to the statement made by the hon. Member for Middlesex, containing as that statement did a most unjustifiable attack on his conduct, and was he not allowed to deny it? In common justice, such an attack having been made he had a right to reply to it, and he trusted that no party feeling or prepossession would be permitted to interfere with his defence. On the honour of a Gentleman, he declared that he never did make use of the words "You are an impertinent fellow," nor apply such terms to the hon. Gentleman. He believed he could have brought forward evidence to prove that he had used no such words, if he had had the same opportunity of preparation as the hon. Member. If he had indeed used those strong and offensive expressions, he asked whether the hon. Member would not last night have stated to his hon. Friend (Mr. Forester), when called on for an explanation by that Gentleman, "that Mr. Charlton had first insulted him by calling him an impertinent fellow?" ["He did!"] Did the hon. Gentleman tell his hon. Friend that? No: the hon. Gentleman did no such thing; he said, "that he had reason to complain of Mr. Charlton for interrupting his conversation, and telling him 'to hold his tongue;'" but the hon. Gentleman never, till this present occasion, spoke of the use of those strong and offensive words, "impertinent fellow," or complained of their having been applied to him.—Those words he (Mr. Charlton) declared he had never used in the whole course of his life in reference to a Gentleman, and which no person with any pretensions to the character of a Gentleman would so apply. In the midst of the great interruptions which he experienced last night, he certainly must have met with some of the most ex- traordinary nature from the hon. Member for Middlesex, to induce him to use the expressions which he did use. In the first instance, he requested the hon. Member to hold his tongue; but on the hon. Member replying that he would not, he (Mr. Charlton) then, dropping the entreating tone, told the hon. Member to hold his tongue. That was the whole "head and front of his offending," and he declared, before Heaven, that he had used no other offensive expression. He should be in a condition to prove the truth of his statement when those hon. Gentlemen who were sitting near him last night came down to the House. If then the hon. Member for Middlesex had been guilty, in the first instance, of a want of courtesy, and in the next of unfairly interrupting, there could be no doubt that the hon. Member was the first party to offend. After that, he admitted that he had written the note of which the hon. Member complained, and it was rather surprising the hon. Member, if he conceived that he (Mr. Charlton) had used the expression "impertinent fellow," did not tell the hon. Member for Wenlock that he (Mr. Charlton) was the person who first gave offence. He hardly knew what the question at the present moment was, because the dispute which had taken place between himself and the hon. Member for Middlesex was a private dispute, which had been carried beyond the walls of that House. He admitted that he had followed that course which it was the invariable practice for a Gentleman to pursue when he felt himself to be insulted by another, and, whatever might be the opinion of some Puritans, seemed to him to be the best calculated to secure the privileges of society. It was with great reluctance that he for the first time in his life resorted to the unpleasant alternative to which the hon. Member for Middlesex had called the attention of the House; and he only did so when he found that the hon. Member refused to answer his letter, set at defiance all explanation, and disregarded all those bonds by which society was held together. He had therefore been reduced to the necessity of using strong language but if they were the last words he had to speak, he would, feeling that he had bean insulted, rather lose his right hand than retract a syllable of what he had written.

Mr. Roebuck

said, that although he was very unwilling to take part in the discus- sion, he felt it his duty to come forward in the character of a witness. The two parties who had hitherto spoken, appeared to be influenced by those feelings of warmth which naturally arose out of the dispute. To that dispute he had been no party. He came forward as a witness, and he hoped and trusted, in the consideration of the House, an impartial one. He would speak with all the solemnity of manner and adjuration of the hon. Member who had last addressed the House; and he would suppose, though, perhaps, in not so emphatic a manner, that he was speaking on oath, in the presence of a jury. The hon. Member for Middlesex began a conversation which was suggested by a remark of the hon. Member for Ludlow, who said that the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had stated "that the Ballot had been tried in America and had failed;" on which the hon. Member for Middlesex, or himself—he hardly knew which made the remark first—said that it was no such thing. The conversation continued, until it was interrupted by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He confessed he was somewhat startled by the sudden and sharp manner in which the hon. Member for Ludlow exclaimed "Hold your tongue, Sir; if you want to answer me, you can reply to me after I have done." To this the hon. Member for Middlesex said, "I shall not; I am not talking to you." The hon. Member for Ludlow replied, "Hold your tongue, Sir; you shall hold your tongue; I will make you hold your tongue; you are an impertinent fellow; we want no republicanism here!" When he rose and called the hon. Member for Ludlow to order, he said that the hon. Member had made use of a word which no hon. Member could be expected to hear from another. He had stated at the time that the hon. Member for Ludlow had called the hon. Member for Middlesex an impertinent fellow. He was asked by several hon. Members—many of whom he was sure would corroborate the statement he was now making—before he left the House, what the hon. Member for Ludlow had Said; his reply was, that he had called Mr. Hume an impertinent fellow, and told him he wanted no republicanism there. He had said all he knew of the transaction; he was no longer a witness, and would therefore for the present abstain from saying any more upon the subject.

Mr. William Roche

was not cognizant of his own knowledge, of what passed between the hon. Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Middlesex, but he rose to state that the hon. Member for Bath told him last night that the hon. Member for Middlesex had been called an impertinent fellow by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Mr. Richards

had not the honour of being acquainted personally with the hon. Member for Ludlow; he was induced to come forward on the present occasion from a feeling of respect both towards him and the House; and he was sorry to say, in the outset, that his impression of what passed was somewhat different from that stated by the hon. Member for Bath. He was attending to the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow, when he remarked that something passed between the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Bath, which seemed to excite the hon. Member for Ludlow, who said, in his hearing, in a sharp and abrupt way, "Hold your tongue, Sir." The hon. Member for Middlesex instantly replied, "Hold your tongue, Sir;" on which the hon. Member for Ludlow, as he understood, said, "If you do not hold your tongue, I will make you." The hon. Member for Middlesex immediately replied, "You are an impertinent fellow;" and then the hon. Member for Bath rose, and spoke to Order. What happened afterwards was in the recollection of the House.

Major Cumming Bruce

sat in the neighbourhood of the hon. Member for Ludlow last night, and his impression of what passed was substantially the same as that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. Very great noise prevailed in the House whilst the hon. Member for Ludlow was speaking, and he appeared to labour under considerable irritation in consequence. Some conversation, carried on in rather a louder tone than was usually adopted by gentlemen when sitting near a Member who was speaking, passed between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Bath. The hon. Member for Ludlow appeared to consider that the conversation had reference to him, and he addressed the hon. Member for Middlesex, as far as he could recollect, in these words—"Hold your tongue, Sir; I will not be interrupted." Then that which had been stated by the hon. Member for Knaresborough followed. According to the best of his recollection, the hon. Member for Middlesex said "Hold your tongue; you are an impudent (or impertinent) fellow." He most distinctly asserted, on his honour, that, as, far as he recollected, the hon. Member for Ludlow did not make use of the expression "impertinent fellow," but the hon. Member said, in a sharp and overbearing tone, "Hold your tongue, or I will make you; I will not be interrupted."

Lord Stormont

heard the conversation which passed last night between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Bath, and he heard the hon. Member for Ludlow say, "Hold your tongue; do not interrupt." He then heard the hon. Member for Middlesex say, 'Hold your tongue; I will go on," or some words to that effect. The hon. Member for Ludlow next said, "If you do not hold your tongue, I will make you." Upon which the hon. Member for Middlesex said, "You are an impudent fellow." He (Lord Stormont) turned round and repeated at the time the very same words to the hon. Member for Westminster.

Mr. Arthur Trevor

said, he sat in the same place last night as that now occupied by the hon. Member for Bath (the principal Opposition bench); and he recollected hearing the hon. Member for Ludlow say to the hon. Member for Middlesex, in rather a tone of irritation, which attracted his attention, "Hold your tongue." The hon. Member for Middlesex made some reply, which did not reach his (Mr. Trevor's) ear, and the hon. Member for Ludlow then said. "If you have anything to say to me, you can reply after I sit down; I have not spoken to you." To the best of his recollection, the hon. Member for Ludlow never applied the expression "impertinent fellow" to the hon. Member for Middlesex. If the hon. Member had done so, he (Mr. Trevor) could scarcely have failed to hear the words, as he was sitting immediately below the hon. Member, and was consequently able to catch every word that fell from him. Some sharp expressions escaped from the lips of the hon. Member for Middlesex, the nature of which he did not comprehend, as it was spoken in an under tone.

Lord Mahon

was sitting last night in the neighbourhood of the hon. Member for Ludlow, and his recollection of what passed accorded with that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He was convinced that the hon. Member for Ludlow did not use the expression "impertinent fellow." If that expression had been used by the hon. Member for Ludlow, situated as he was, he must have heard it. He did, however, hear the words, not "impertinent fellow," but "impudent fellow," used by the hon. Member for Middlesex.

Mr. Strutt

said, that whilst the division was being taken last night, he inquired of the hon. Member for Bath what had taken place between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Ludlow, and the hon. Member for Bath then gave him the same account he had just now given of the words used by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The hon. Member for Bath told him that the hon. Member for Ludlow said "You are an impertinent fellow; we want no republicanism here."

Mr. Wakley

said, that without making any remark on the character or tendency of the conversation which took place last night, he felt bound injustice to all parties to state what he heard. He was sitting next to the hon. Member for Bath, and the hon. Member for Ludlow having made a remark with reference to something which he said had been proved by the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, the hon. Member for Middlesex, in aloud whisper, said "There is no proof." The hon. Member for Ludlow then said, "Hold your tongue;" and the hon. Member for Middlesex, replied, "I shan't hold my tongue." The hon. Member for Ludlow immediately observed," Will you not? I will make you;" and then the hon. Member for Middlesex answered, "You are an an impudent, (or impertinent) fellow." The hon. Member for Ludlow also said something about republicanism which he did not comprehend.

Mr. William Miles

said, that he last night heard a conversation going on between the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Ludlow, and he thought according to his own recollection, that he heard the terms "impertinent fellow," or "impudent fellow," bandied about from both parties. He thought it necessary to state, however, that from the noise which prevailed at the time, it was almost impossible to catch distinctly what fell from either hon. Members,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

believed there was no Question before the House to warrant the continuance of the discussion. As long as he had been in the House the mere reading of evidence from one side of the House and the other, on words spoken during a period of noise and excitement, and of considerable irritation between two parties, however it might rest between them, was not a question the House could take upon itself to deal with. If there were a question raised as to a breach of privilege that was a question they would take into consideration, but in the case before it he was at a loss to know what good purpose could be answered by a desultory discussion. He would not state a word upon the conversation of last night further than this, that whilst he must deplore that a conversation had occurred between any Members that affected the feelings of other parties, it was not in respect of conversations occuring in this House, that it became the duty of the House to interfere, so long as the conversation did not take place within the hearing of the House. With respect to any act done that interfered with the freedom of debate, or the privileges of the House, let that question be brought forward and the House would entertain it.—With the best feelings to all parties, he could not but say no person could doubt that misconception had arisen. It was, however, a satisfaction to observe that hon. Members who concurred, and hon. Members who differed in politics, had equally come forward, and stated frankly and unreservedly all that they had heard. But all the hon. Members who had spoken appeared to have a great difference of recollection as to the words which were actually spoken; and it appeared also that the hon. Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Ludlow had a very different impression on their minds as to what had occurred. Under these circumstances there could be no doubt that language had passed between these hon. Members which was to be regretted; but he doubted whether the House could interfere concerning the vague recollections of what had passed. If, indeed, there had been any appearance of an intention of either of the parties to proceed to a breach of the law or of the peace, then, indeed, the House might be called upon to interpose its authority. But as there did not appear to be the slightest apprehension of such an occurrence he could only regret that the House had been put, unnecessarily, to the trouble of listening to the matter as far as it had gone. He suggested that it would be proper to proceed with the Orders of the Day.

Mr. William S. O'Brien

differed from the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that if an hon. Member said to another in the House "Hold your tongue," the House had a right to interfere, and express its opinion on the subject.

Mr. O'Connell

said, the House had heard a variety of conflicting statements, all exhibiting more or less discrepancy of detail. In his opinion, however, the man who distinctly said that he heard such and such words used, was a much more competent witness upon the subject than those who merely said that they did not hear them, and moreover, that they did not hear very distinctly what had been said on either side. It was quite clear that under such circumstances as these a man could not be very certain as to the words alleged not to have been said. Now the hon. Member for Bath had positively declared that he had heard distinctly the obnoxious words, "You are an impertinent fellow," used by the hon. Member for Ludlow.—The hon. Member for Finsbury heard the expression, "We want no Republicans" from the same hon. Member. The hon. Member for Somersetshire said, that he thought he recollected hearing the words "Impertinent fellow" bandying about between the hon. Members for Middlesex and Ludlow. And let it too be remembered that the hon. Member for Bath was the closest of all to the hon. Member for Middlesex; and in his account of the conversation at the time, he attributed the expression to the hon. Member for Ludlow. The expression, too, was used in a dropped tone of voice, as if it were to convey an insult to the individual to whom it was addressed, and yet be concealed from every one else. This would easily account for the fact why so many other Members had not heard it. It was clear that the hon. Member for Ludlow had no recollection of having used the expression; he distinctly and positively denied it. He believed that, under those circumstances, that was the strongest retraction which could be made. Those acquainted with such matters were aware that the best apology that could be made for words said to be uttered, was to deny having uttered them. The hon. Member for Ludlow had stated this. He had denied having used the words. If, then, he had used them, it must have been in anger and in irritation, and when he was not master of himself. The best apology there could be for them was his solemn declaration that he had not used them. This placed the hon. Member for Middlesex in this situation—he had heard the distinct retraction of those words, and he would therefore withdraw the words he had used, and thus put an end to the transaction. He thought that as to the words "Hold your tongue, they might well be passed over. He certainly should not be satisfied, and he hoped the House would not be so, until they were Certain that this matter should terminate in a manner that would not affect any human being. The hon. Member for Ludlow denied having used the offensive expression. This was an admission on the part of the hon. Member for Ludlow, that he did not intend to offend the hon. Member for Middlesex. He thought the House would act rightly in putting an end to this matter, as that expression was denied: in other words, as the best apology was made far it. He was sure the hon. Member for Middlesex would withdraw the Words he had used, and upon this being done, he was certain the hon. Member for Ludlow would not hesitate (for he could not suppose that hon. Member would do any thing but what was right), to withdraw his letter, and the matter could be thus terminated. The House could not let the affair stand as it did then; and if it could not be arranged, he should feel it his duty to move that both the hon. Gentlemen should be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. He hoped, however, the matter would end in a conciliatory manner; but there Was no one who must not see that it could not remain as it was then—it was, in fact, giving the opinion of the House, that both Gentlemen ought to go out and shoot each other. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by repeating his determination, that if there was no prospect of a satisfactory arrangement, he would move that both Members should be taken into custody.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that he had been requested by the hon. Member for Middlesex to attend this evening to state what he recollected hearing of the conversation which took place in his immediate neighbourhood in the House last night. He recollected perfectly that the hon. Member for Middlesex rose for the purpose apparently of making some explanation; and he saw very plainly that the hon. Member was labouring under feelings of great irritation. Seeing this, he interfered, and said to both parties, "Don't go on, don't go on." He said this not for the purpose of preventing explanation between the parties, but because he apprehended that under the circumstances the explanation which might take place would not be of a very satisfactory kind. He was apprehensive, he confessed, that some word or expression might escape from either of the hon. Members which in their cooler moments they might regret, and therefore it was, that he was anxious to prevent their carrying the conversation further. With regard to what had actually passed, as far as he was cognizant of it, he certainly did not hear the word "Republican" or any similar word, applied to the hon. Member for Middlesex by the hon. Member for Ludlow. As to the words "Impertinent fellow," he did hear them used by the hon. Member for Middlesex, but not, as he believed, addressed to the hon. Member for Ludlow, but rather in speaking of him; that is, the hon. Member for Middlesex said to the hon. Member for Bath, "He's an impertinent fellow." This offensive remark escaped the hon. Member for Middlesex, no doubt under the impression that something still more exciting had been said to himself by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The same expression was attributed to the hon. Member for Ludlow; but as that hon. Member had to all intents and purposes denied having used it, it was as if it had never been uttered. Under the circumstances, he really thought that in order to obliterate all unpleasant feelings on the subject remaining on the minds of the parties, the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was a reasonable and just one. He could not conceive that any good could result from adopting any other course.

Colonel Evans

said, that he quite concurred in the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. He certainly could not concur, however, in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that on mere technical grounds the House should get rid of the discussion of such a Question. As the case stood the disavowal on the part of the hon. Member for Ludlow of the words, "You are an impertinent fellow," had certainly done away with all offence that could possibly arise out of them. But there were the words previously used by the hon. Member for Ludlow, of "Hold your tongue," with respect to which he felt sure that, if the hon. Member for Ludlow would declare that he meant nothing offensive by there, the hon. Member for Middlesex would be prepared, in return, to offer every satisfactory explanation of his part in the conversation.

Mr. Charlton

said, that he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, and he had no hesitation in declaring most solemnly that he meant nothing offensive to the hon. Member for Middlesex in saying, "Hold your tongue." This he declared most solemnly, as a gentleman and a man of honour. Now, with respect to the word "republican," or "republicanism," with regard to which much diversity of opinion appeared to be entertained by hon. Members who heard him, and which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth said, that, he had not heard used, perhaps he (Mr. Charlton) could explain how the mistake and this diversity of opinion had arisen. The fact was, the words, "We want no Republicans here;" or, "We don't want any Republicanism here," he conceiving that Republicanism was the necessary concomitant of the Ballot, formed part of his speech to the House, and were not at all addressed to the hon. Member for Middlesex. That was the reason, perhaps, why the words were recollected by some of the hon. Members who heard the conversation, and not by others.

Sir Edward Codrington

said, that the matter was one which might have been very easily settled if they had begun with the beginning and not at the end, in discussing it. The fact was, the hon. Member for Ludlow complained of an offensive expression on the part of the hon. Member for Middlesex, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, it appeared, had made use of that offensive expression when labouring under the impression that the hon. Member for Ludlow had said something offensive to him. It was in consequence of that supposed offensive expression, On the part of the hon. Member for Ludlow, that the hon. Member for Middlesex said what he had said. If the hon. Member for Ludlow had not said what he was supposed to have said, the hon. Member for Middlesex would not have said what he did say. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member for Ludlow having denied or withdrawn all intention of offence, the whole affair in his opinion fell, most satisfactorily, to the ground.

Mr. Hume

certainly should not have used the words which he had done if he had not, at the time, distinctly understood the hon. Member for Ludlow to have made use of offensive terms to himself. As the hon. Member for Ludlow had denied having made use of the supposed expressions, he had no hesitation in saying that the words he had used he had spoken in error, and under a wrong impression, and therefore he wished that he had not used them.

Mr. O'Connell

then, of course, the hon. Member for Ludlow can have no objection to withdraw his letter. [Calls for Mr. Charlton, who was observed to be talking earnestly with an hon. Member near him, which caused a slight pause to ensue. Mr. O'Connell then continued]—If the hon. Member for Ludlow had any hesitation in withdrawing his letter, he should certainly persist in the course he had intimated, and move that he be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Charlton

said, he rose under very peculiar circumstances. He was willing to bow to the opinion of the House, and accept the explanation of the hon. Member for Middlesex, in full satisfaction of the offence which had been given. The hon. Member for Middlesex said that he had used the words complained of when labouring under a wrong impression, and that he wished he had not used them. He (Mr. Charlton) could only say that he wished the hon. Member for Middlesex had said as much last night when applied to on the subject. If he had said so, he (Mr. Charlton) would not have written the letter which he had done. As, however, the hon. Member for Middlesex had deferred this explanation till now, the utmost he could say was, that he felt sorry his letter had ever been written.

The Speaker

said, now that the affair had terminated, he trusted, that he should be excused for saying a few words. In the first place, he was bound to declare that he thought the House would not have performed its duty if it had not brought the question to an amicable conclusion, as it fortunately had been. There was another point to which it was necessary for him to advert, He did not hear the hon. Member for Bath state last night that the hon. Member for Ludlow had called the hon. Member for Middlesex an impertinent fellow. If he had heard it stated that such language had been addressed by one Member of the House to another, he would not have allowed the circumstance to pass by, for a single moment, without requiring an explanation.