The Express. — London, England, 1847-01-29 00:00:00

law office, who introduced a friend into that de partment, and received a sum of money for so doing. Mr. Lewis examined Jones with respect to the tran'aetion. Joneshad been guilty of what amouided toe misdemeanour, end it was the duty of Lewis, as his superior officer, to cau tion him that anything be might state would be used in evidence against him. Did ho do so? No! With the poor-law commissioner's perfidy, he got all he could from Jones, and then, acting as a principal prosecutor in the case, used ell he had said against him ! 'the present Atterney- General, speaking of this caw, said in open court " The commissioners do not want to go on—the Attorney-General does not want to go on—hut Sir James Graham does—that man is a perfect demon." That was the present Attor ney-General's opinion. lie (Mr. Ferrand) did not quote it offensively to the late Homo Secretary—( " Oh, oh," and a laugh)—but he was quite prepared to juetily the use of the expression. But now be would tell them what Mr. Coode, the late assistant poor-law commissioner, said of those with whom he acted. When Parker fell into disgrace, Cootie heard of it accidentally. He wrote to Parker, telling him that there was a plot against him in the office. He told him in his letter that though he knew enough of the commissioners to know that they would sacrifice anybody, yet be was amazed and disgusted at the cowse they were taking with regard to " Therefore." said he, " pray use me without eciruple; prescribe to me any course you please; and if I do not do my possible, count me one of the manes fit to serve my present masters." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That was Mr. Coode's opinion of the commissioners; the opinion of a man who knew all that was going on, both at the poor-law office, and at the Horne-office ; who was deep in the secrets of the government and the commis sioners, and who, consequently, was well able to judge of the character of the parties concerned. (Hear, hear.) Now, having given these little specimens of the opinions of the parties carrying out the law concerning each other, he' . would relate to the house three scenes which had taken place at the Home-office, in the committee-room, and in a police- I court. First, for the scene at the Home-office. It would be recollected that early last session Mr. Wukley put a question t 3 Bir James Graham as to whether he could give any information respecting a practice said to be prevalent in the Andover Union Workhouse of feeding on rotten flesh, and picking rotten bones. Tue right hon. baronet seemed horror-struck. He promised immediate inquiry. He said he would write to the poor-law commis- sioners that night. Ho did so. The poor law commissions's sent down to Andover, to institute an investigation, a par son, in his (Mr. Ferranti's) opinion, ve7 improper to have been appointed, namely, the very weistant commissioner who had charge of the Union. (Hear, hear.) But though a very improper person, the assistant commissioner did his duty. He made a report. On his return to London, be had an interview with Sir James Graham at the Home office. During the interview, Sir Edmund Head came in, and a discussion ensued as to the course the government should take. Would it be credited ? The right hon. bare., a member of parliament, a minister of England, the home secretary of the Queen, actually tried to induce these two gentlemen to be parties to a statement which was untrue, for the purpose of deceiving the parliament of the empire! Behold the picture! A home secretary instructing two public officers in the art of dissimulation—(a laugh)—a mi nister of the crown trying to make two gentlemen parties to a falsehood, by talking them over, and trying to bamboozle them ! " Now," said Sir James Graham, " what shall I tell the house ? It will never do to produce this report it will be stock in trade for TAe Times for • twavemouth. I will tell you what I will say. I will say, that I immediately caused inquiry to be instituted that the assistant commissioner who was sent down has verbally reported to me the result of his investigation that he found that there were some persons in the workhouse' of depraved appetites,' who had taken to gnawing bones. If I confine the report to this, the statement will probably suffice. As for the report, it must not be produced . it must be treated as if it never had been made." (Hear, hear.) That was the evidence given by Mr. Parker before the Ando ver committee. It was made at the committee, in the presence of the Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Manners Sutton), who was now sitting next to Sir James Graham, and who never contradicted a word of it. If it was not true, why, indeed, did not the late home-secretary go down to the committee and contradict it himself? He was too wary for that. He took good care not to go down to the committee-room, but to keep himself out of the reach of the inquiry. No one Gould doubt, however, that he was the prime mover in all the schemes and plots which were divo'ged. Lewis was only the puppet : Sir James Graham pulled the strings. But now as to the Nene in the committee-room. Mr. Christie, a member of the committee, proposed to ask Mr. Parker whether the commiseioners were in the habit of giving instructions to their clerks as to the statements they should make concerning proceedings in the otfice. There was nothing wrong, as it seemed to him, in that inquiry. An investigation wan going forward as to the proceedings of these people, and it was highly necessary that such facts should be investigated. Mr. Manners Sutton, however, got up in a great state of agitation, and exclaimed, " I must have the room cleared if that question is to be per sisted in." The room was cleared accordingly. During the interval, Mr. Manners Sutton rushed out of the room in a state of great agitation followed in a short time by the judicial Mr. Jas. Stu art Wortley, Judge• Advocat e laugh)—and it was speedily rumoured that ?dr, Manners Sutton bad challenged Mr. Christie for asking the question above recited. That question, he (Mr. Ferrand) would here remark, had never yet been replied to. It was one of great importance, and the country would never be satisfied until the whole facts were elicited. It was said that the main cause of the challenge which passed between Mr. Mennen Sutton and Mr. Christie was this: Mr. Manners Sutton said that Mr. Christie would not have oohed the question, if he had not known that the Times reporter was present—tea insinuation which Mr. Christie declared that he treated with thorough contempt. But here he came to the scene at the police court. Upou hearing of what had passed in the committee-room, Mr. Parker, who was a barrister, immediately proceeded to the police court at Westminster, where he obtained an interview with the presiding magistrate—the magistrate, be it re membered, who was responsible to the Home Secre tary for his proceedings—(hear, hear,)—and to whom he applied for a warrant against the Under Secretary of State — (a laugh)—very much, of course, to the worthy magistrate's surprise and consternation. However, a warrant was made out, and " a policeman of great size and strength "—(a laugh)—was despatched according to the report to bring the body of the Under Secretary of State before the court, where he was bound over afterwards to keep the peace. But the interruption had had the effect intended it had checked the answer. And he (Mr. Ferrand) asked, with all gravity, was it right, was it just, was it honest and honourable, to refuse him an inquiry whilst a question calculated to elicit as unjust and as infamous a proceeding as had ever been heard of remained till this day unreplied to. (Hear, hear.) But what was the opinion of the committee about these revelations ? They declared that on a review of the proceedings of the et nnotissioners, especially in the case of ?dr. Parker, there appeared to be much that Was irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance with their functions, and of a character to shake the public confidence in the adminis tration of the law. Addressing himself, then, to the present Beereary of State for the Home Department, he begged to ask, "Are these men yet in office? " (Hear, hear.) Were, they WM exeraising power over millions of their fellow matures? (Hear, hear.) And he would ask further, was it the intention of the government to screen them from further inquiry into their conduct? Was it their inten tion to league themselves with the members of the late administration for that purpow, and had they coalesced to stifle this inquiry? (Hear.) If they had, they might be assured that the country would not rest until they had changed their course. Bat now he came to another question. 'Three or four years ago, he bad brought under the consideration of the house an attempt which was being made by the poor-law authorities to erect a tread wheel in the union workhouse at Halifax. Oa that occasion, gir James Graham denied, in the flattest manner, that any such thing had been proposed. At the very moment that denial was given, the specifications for the works, and an esti mate of the cost, were recorded upon the minutes of the union board. Mr. Clements, an asaistant commissioner, went down to the board of guardians, and was inetrumeutal in obtaining the passing of a minute condemning him (Mr. Ferrand) for what he had stated. That was a breach of privilege; and he (Mr. Ferrand) being anxious to uphold the privileges of that house, came down and protested against Mr. Clemente's proceedings. Well, how did the helm act? The right hon. member for Tarnworth, exercising his usual plausibility, induced the noble lord at the head of the go vernment to save Mr. Clemente by sacrificing the privileges of the house. What was the consequence? Mr. Clements grew bolder and more audacious, until at last, on one occasion, he shook his fist in the face of the chairman of the Halifax board of guardians, and told him, " What you say is false; and you know it to be false." ( Hear and a laugh .)' But now to return to the great Jenkin Jones case. When Mr. Jenkin Jones found that he was to be brought up for judgment he wrote a letter to the late Home Secretary. lie told him that he deliberately charged Mr. Lewis and another of the com missioners with acting in direct contravention of the act of parliament, by individually issuing orders under the seal of the board, with the name of another commissioner fraudu lently added thereto afterwards. He requested the atten tion of the government to the fact that the commissioners were actually committing this misdemeanor daily. He (Mr. Ferran ti ) could imagine Sir J. Graham's alarm on re ceiving that letter. Of course, he would have sent for Mr. Lewis. " This," he would have said to him, "is an alarm ing businem. This fellow is going to tell all ; he mint be made safe, for he knows a great deal too much." (Laughter.) Whether this passed or not Jenkin Jones's communication bad a potent effect. Two days after, a letter was addressed to him, saying " that Mr. George Lewis and the com missioners had no wish to injure him, and that if he would plead guilty, they would net press for judgment." He had been brought up for judgment despite their dietiuct pledge to the contrary, and he was sentenced to twelve months' imprieonment. Before be had been long in prison, he petitioned the Home Secretary, but obtained no answer. la three months afterwards, he wrote to Mr. Coodc, recall iog to him that the petition he had unavailingly sent to the Home Secretary had been approved of by the eommiseioners, that Mr. Lewis had promised to support it with the were. hary, and that, unless something was done, he would not endure such treatment, but would take his own course. Mr. Coode called upon him, told him not to be hasty, and very shortly afterwards, without any further proceedings on his part, he was released front prison ' having undergone only eight months' emifisement, instead of the twelve tis which kirhad been adjudged. To show how little the persecution of Mr. Jenkin Jones by the commissioners had injured him in the opinion of those who knew him, it would be sufficient to say, that the assurance-office to which he bad been at tached, before he entered the service of the commissioner., reinstated hint in his old position immediately on his quitting pwson, and made him a present of 100 gs. In the committee Mr. Christie bad attempted in every poreible way to extract from Mr. Lewis an explanation of the mode in which he conceived Mr. Jenkin Jones could have injured the commis- THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 1847. under the influence of his excited feelings, and the circum stance be had alluded to, his rimer ption of the report was to be received as correct, or whether they would give some credit to the report of a committee of their own body, con. etitured so he had oated. (Hear.) So much as to the affair of 1842. But in the spring of 1844 the hon. member thought fit, in a speech made in that house, to go a step further, and allege that I (said Sir J. Graham) and Mr. Lewis, the Poor law commissioner, had conspired together to obtain a false report, for the Purpose of crushing the hon. member. I thought it my duty in his presence to call the attention of the house to an attention directly affecting not only my personal honour, but the high office I had the honour to bold in the service of her Majesty. I denied the accusation in a manner as solemn as though I had been upon oath in a court of law, and I called upon the hon. member either to retract the charge, or to take the necessary steps, for which I offered him every opportunity, to substantiate it; but the hon. member refused to submit himself to the jurisdiction of this house, and demurred to it as a fair tribunal to investigate a charge ' made by one of its members against another, and having made that accusation, and refused to substantiate it he left the house, and, sir, it now stands on your journals that that accusation was unfounded and calumnious. (Cheers from both sides.) To own to this point I think common candour will admit that the preaump'ion is strongly in my favour. (Hear.) But in July or August last the hon. member re newed the accusation in a more substantive form, and pub lished two letters in the Times, containing, in writing, the charge he had more than once verbally made. Mr. Lewis, acting by advice, at once took the opinion of counsel whether the letters so published were not inlietable. The hon. member, ou a former evening, said that he wrote those letters fur the purpose of bringing the poiat at issue directly to the test. But Led that really be n his object, it is rea sonable to presume that he would have at once acknow ledged himselt the author of thew. I am, however, greatly misinformed if, for three weeks after he was applied to on the subject, he returned any answer ; and Mr. Lew is was compelled to send to Yorkshire, by his attorney, to ask the question whether the hon. member woe the author or not ; and even then, unions I am also misit formed, he declined to give any answer; and it was not until two days after his arrival in London, when he was a naked, that he ac knowledged himself the au' hor of the letters—(Hear)—and not, them, I believe, until the Tiros had intimated that they would be prepared to produce the original letters to prove the authorship, if called upon. (Cheers and a laugh.) So much for the hon. member's desire to bring the matter to the test. (Hear, hear.) Then the form the matter took in the courts of law was an application for a rule for a crimi nal information, and the honourable member combated by all the means in his power the cooking that rule absolute, and it was only after full argument that the court de cided to make it absolute ' • and here, in passing, I would observe that the affidavit upon which the hon. member has relied to-night, that of Mr. Barker, was used in the Court of Queen's Bench on the last argument upon the rule nisi, when there was no possibility of answer ing it; but it was before the court; and nothing but my respect fertile awn flow of the administration of justice and the knowledge that any interference on my part would be criminal in the highest degree, restrain.; me from reading to the house the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England, speaking on behalf of the whole Court of Queen's Bench, in deciding that the rule should be ' ebeolute. In that court I have filed an affidavit on oath, solemnly denying that I was a party in any conspi racy whatever to obtain any false report for the purpose of aerhing the hon. member. (Ilear, hate.) But the hon. member sale, that the real naturcoithe transaction between me and Mr. Lewis will never be known until the day of judgment. Before the day of judgment, however, an op portunity will be given of obtaining, in the most authentic dorm, and in the most unexceptionable manner, full infor mation as to all the circumstances and all that passed as to the case in question, for I am ready to appear as a witness and explain before the court every part of the transaction so tar as lam concerned. (Hear.) And having made that de claration, and considering the matter as one still pending before the courts of law, and that any long delay in the decision of the court is impossible ; fir Mr. Lewis having entered into neuritic* two or three days before the com mencement of the session to proceed4thecase will necessarily go before a jury in the course of five or six weeks ; the house will feel that I am not refusing to give the hon. member every fair advantage, when I say, that under such circumstances for me to enter into any detail here of the points upon which I am about to be examined, would be highly indecorous on my part, and an interference with the administration of justice. (Cheers.) The house would un derstand that in regard to the transaction witn Mr. Mutt, I will not shrink from giving at the proper time the fullest explanation. There are, however, some points which have been touched upon by the hon. member, to which I am anxious to refer. The hon. member has naked where is the honour of Mr. Lewis ? I say Mr. Lewis has taken the necessary steps to vindicate h:s honour that step which the hon. gentleman most desires ; (hear, and • I laugh) and, at the proper time, it will be seen whether he has really departed from the course of an honourable and I faithful servant of the crown, or whether the accusation of the hon. member which as against me this louse has declared to be unfounded and calumnious, will not also be declared by a jury of his countrymen, to be • false and malicious libel as against Mr. Lewis. Another point I will lay a word upon is, the charge as to Mt. Jenkins Jones having bartered an office for tome corrupt consideration, , and the honourable member has referred to a passage of the report of the Andover committee, in which the present attorney-general expressed as to me an obser vation remarkable alike for its brevity and its severity. (A laugh.) That opinion, however, appeared to be like that given bye counsel to his employer, and in the impetuosity of the moment, he (Sir J. Graham) therefore attached no importance to it. He must, however, inform the house, that in that matter he had acted upon the advice of the law officers of the Crown, the Attorney and Solicitor-Ganeral at the time. The facts of the case came to Lis knowledge as Secretary of State, that Mr. Jones hail plea led guilty to the charge of the corrupt barter of an office, anti that the court had sentenced him to a years' imprisonment. Regerdless of applications that were made to him, he resolved that the prisoner should be brought up fir judgment, and he thought he should have given the most unsound advice, if he had advised the remission of the sentence, at all events, until a considerable portion of it had teen undergone. (Hear, hear.) Nor did he give any such advice until the party had suffered eight months of the imprisonment. In the whole of that transaction he assured the house lie had acted from the purest motives, and the advicehe had given was founded on the view he took of his public duty as a minister of the crown. lie would now refer to a motion which had been originally brought under the notice of the house by a question put by the honourable member for Finsbury. Towards the close of the session of 1815, that hon. member put a question to him re lative to the practice of bone-crushing in the Andover union, and in consequence of that question Mr. Parker, the assistant poor law commissioner employed at that time in the district, was directed to make inquiries. That gentleman's report could not be presented until the last day of the session, and the hon. member now accused him (Sir J. Graham) of seek ing to suppress it altogether. It was impossible that he could have had any such object, or that the report could have been suppressed ; fur the lamely beiug made by order of the commeoionen, the report was recorded in the minutes of the office, and would have been necessarily pro- duped ' but he did think, and still thought, that the produe eion of the report on the last day of the session, when no ex planation could have been given, nor any mitigating cinema- stances stated, would have been improper and have led to misap prehension, and, accordingly, he resolved not to lay it on the table until the next session, but to give a verbal explanation of what had taken place. He was of course open to the judgment of the house for his conduct in this matter, lmt in this case, alto, he had acted with what he felt to be his duty. (Hear . , hear.) But the hon. member had referred to • note made by a public servant, of • conversation said to have occurred between that servant and a minister of the mown, anti which should have been in confidence, seven or eight months before, and called upon him (Sir J. Graham) to set his recollection against each a note. Speaking delibe rately, to the best of his recollection, he thought there were some expressions in that note which he had not used. Some- Wag had been said about hie not having attended the An dover committee. He had not been above three weeks in Lon. don before he surrendered his office, and it was open for the committee at any part of the inquiry to summon him if they thought fit to do so. lie was quite ready to be examined, and should have been happy to give all the explanation in Ida power. Ile did not think the house would draw any un lavourable inference from this circumstance. There was one point more to which he would advert : the charge as to dr removal of Mr. Day from his office. As to Mr. Mott and the Bolton case, he had no Fre aks recollection of the circumstances. He did re f member that the hon. member for Bolton made a state ment of the extreme distress there in 1842. Mr. Mott was the commissioner of the district, end his belief was that it was in his capacity of assistant-commissioner that he made I the inquiry alluded to ; and he had every reason at the time to believe that the report was accurate. With regard to the patronage of the commission, however, he never interfered with it; and when it was decided upon reducing the num ber of assistant-commissioner from ten to nine, though the commissioners might have stated confidentially to him the reasons why they preferred one and parted with another, it was not at his instance that any one of the assistant-commissioners had been dismissed. The hon. member for Knareaborough had been so fortunate as to obtain the support of ail members on his motion respecting Mr. Clemente, but were he to bring it forward now, he (Sir J. Graham) doubted if he would find for it a seconder. (Hear, hear.) With regard to Mr. Twideton, that gentleman had, at his (Sir J. Graham's) entreaty, relinquished the most advantageous situation an aesistant commissioner could hold, fur the benefit of the public ser. vice. (Hear.) In the critical period of 1842, Mr. Twisleton had rendered such services as to prove his ability at a public servant. But the hon. member for Knaresborough imputed to him some corrupt procceding—an imputation which he (Sir J. Graham) had never heard until that moment. (Hear.) He only knew that under the most difficult cir cumstances Mr. Twialeton had discharged the moot diffi cult duties to the entire satisfaction of the government. (Hear.) He was no political friend of his (Sir J. Graham's), having been appointed by the noble lord opposite, and it was only his conviction of his abilities and fidelity that had led him to impose upon him the duty of aiding in the inquiry into the operation of the poor-law in Scotland. It wee uncertain that he could resume hie post of assistant commissioner ; but he (Sir J. Graham) gave him his assur ance that if en opening occurred, his superior merits should not he overlooked, and on that account he did ask the Poor law Commissioners to remember Mr. Twialeton's claim. It subsequently appeared that he wished to proceed on a tour abroad; and when Mr. Day was removed, the Poor-law Com missioners in the exercise of their discretion, eppoiuted Col. Wade. lie hoped in this ttatemont he had not been betrayed into one angry expression such as tne hon. gentleman thought tit to make use of towards him. (Hear, hear.) The matter sinners by his disclosures, but Mr. Lewis was most dogged in his evasion of any satisfactory reply—the very perfection of a non mi record° witness—though in his doubtless prepared I anew ereto prepareS questions on the part of the governme•it, he was glib enough. Mr. Lewis and the right hon. baronet, and the party, thought they had very completely destroyed all the documentary correspondence which might expose them they had destroyed much, no doubt, but there was much in existence which they should find rause to tremble at. He now came to a case in reference to which he dis tinctly charged the right hon. baronet with making in that house statements which at the time of putting them forward as true, he knew to be false. He should exhibit the manner in which the Home-office and the commissioners conspired together for the purpose of getting up reports to crush those who opposed their tyran nical proceedings lie would first speak as to the Bolton case in 1841. The person employed by the commissioners in these infamous proceedings was a man of the name of Mott, who form, rly gained a living by farming the poor in several large parishes in London, wherein he carried out the brutal Malthusian doctrine of teaching the poor to live on a coarser sort of food, and a very small quantity of that. Having by this ill qualification recommended himself to the notice of the corncob/loners, he became an assistant commissioner ; from which office he was ere long dismissed for measures which the public should now be made acquainted with for the first time. But, though dismissed frost that particular position, he was still employed by the commissioners—he had gut hold of some of their secrets, and they were afraid of him—and he became editor of a concern called the .Veie Poor Los, Circular, puldiehed under the sanction of the commissioners. This soon went to the dogs ; and the man then became a partner in that den of horrors, the Haydock Lunatic Asylum, the other partner being Coode, and I both being partners with the full knowledge and sanction of the commissioners. This frightful place being exposed and broken up. Mott was made auditor of a district union at a salary of 800/. a year. He next figured in a court of 1 ter, Pleading the statute of limitations against a clear debt of 3,0001. ; and, by-and by, not withstanding his y 800/. a year, the man was obliged to fl the country to avoid his creditors. The instant that he landed from the Isle of Man at Liverpool, he was arrested, and put into Lancaster gaol. Why was such a man as this retained year after year in the employment of the commissioners ? Simply because he had got hold of some of their secrets. It was with a report drawn up by this man Mott, that the late Secretary of State had sought, in June, 1842, to crush him (Mr. Ferrand), the right hon. baronet not having bad the generosity, the manli. nese, the common decency, to give him the slightest previous notice of the statements he WILI about to make against him on the authority of this man statement., every one of which were subsequently disproved in the fullest manner by the ' testimony of fourteen gentlemen of the highest respectability ' and honour. Well, the next employment of Mr. Mott was a special commission to inquire at Bolton into allegations which had been mule by the hon. and learned member for that borough respecting the administration of the poor-law there. Mr. Mott went down, but he made no inquiry in the slightest degree to the purpose, sedulously avoiding, on the contrary, all the persons who were acquainted with the fact., and being denied to them when they called upon him to proffer the information which he wholly neglected to seek. He made a report, to order of course, with which the right hon. baronet came down upon the hon. member for Bolton, and for the time seemed altogether to crush him. The re port, however, was no sooner printed and made known at Bolton, than Mr. Ashworth, a man of spotless honour, and 'a number of other gentlemen of the first respectability of character, inquired into the matter, and, by the oaths of twelve persona before three magistrates, distinctly and in the fullest manner disproved all Mott's statements, giving . them the lie direct ; and the evidence of these parties was imme diately communicated to the Secretary of State by Mr. Ashworth, with an indignant vindication of the truth of the stattmeat which had been made by the honourable and learned member for Bolton. The brother of the late Conservative member for Bolton, also, in a letter to the right hon. baronet, denounced Mott's report as wholly false and slanderous. Yet, afterall this, the right hon. baronet ventured to get up in the house and ex press his entire confidence in Mr. Mott's reports ; and again, in the Keighley inquiry case, relied upon his report, the whole of which report was again, in the most distinct mea ner, repudiated as false and slanderous by local gentlemen al well known honour. In the same case, he charged the right hon. baronet at the time with having sent Sir J. Walnuts to Keighley to prepare a previously arranged report, and the right hon. baronet only met the charge with an evasion. Ou the 26th of April, 1844, the right hon. member for Dor chester stated that he could not find that any communica tion had taken place between himself and Mr. Mott respecting the latter gentleman's report. He (Mr. Ferrand) had never said that there had been direct communication, nor did he know at the time that there bad been communica tions between the right hon. baronet and Mr. Lewis, the poor-law commissioner. Subsequently, however, a" split" had taken place among the parties, and it was ascertained that Mr. Lewis had been made a tool of. for the purpose of destroying his (Mr. Ferrand's) character. Mr. Lewis ad mitted before the Andover committee that Mr. Mott had received instructions from the commissioners to investigate the affairs of the Keighley union. What then must the house think of the right honourable baronet's assertion, that Mr. Mott had acted in the matter without instructions. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ferrand) asserted that Mr. Mott acted under instructions ; and he should be able to prove it to the satisfaction of the house. The hon. member read some extracts from the evidence taken before the Andover committee, to prove that Mr. Mott acted under a direction. But the house should hear something more extraordinary on the subject He held in his hand the affidavit of a most respectable gentleman named Barker, who swore that he remembered having accompanied Mr. Mott in his journey to the Keighley union on the 13th April, 1842. Deponent swore that on that occasion Mr. Mott told him that he had received instructions to visit the union and re port the result to the commissioners. Now this was about the time when the House of Common' pronounced his (Mr. Ferrand's) statements on the subject to be calumnious and unfounded. Deponent further said, that Mr. Mott told him that Mr. ' , errand's statement was true, and that he (Mott) had documents in his possession to prove it. Deponent fur ther expressed his full belief that Mr. Mott acted all through under instructions from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. With respect to the ease of Mr. Day, he dis tinctly charged the right hon. baronet with having summa rily dismissed that gentleman to make room for his friend Mr. Twissleton.' Mr. Day, the man who had been robbed of his appointment—robbed by the right hon. baronet—wrote on the 21st of January, 1814, requesting him not to fill up his situation until some tien... had been given for inquiry , or until he had consulted the commissioners. To this the right hon. barmet replied, that he could not interfere, as the matter rested wholly with the commissioners ; and yet, be fore the Andover committee, Mr. Lewis stated his impression that Mr. Day had been dismissed in eonsvpienee of Sir J. °reliant's desire to make roam for Mr. Twnaleton. (Hear.) Was it not clear, then, that the right hon. baronet ha robbed pone Day of his daily bread? (Laughter.) He should trouble the house with but one more document, and on that document he should ground his application for a committee. in the evidence taken before the Andover committee, he found that, on the 13th Aug., 1846, Mr. Christie asked Mr. Lewis, b Were there any particular reasons for calling on Mr. Mott to resign ?" The question caused a great sensa tion, and Mr. Lewis replied, "The committee will excuse my replying to that question." Would the right bon. gentleman tell the house whether there were any particular reasons ? He (Mr. Ferrand) would tell the house the reason; .it was because the right hon. bar met dare net employ Mr. Mott any longer, because he wished to be able to say in the house that the men was politically dead, let his ashes be not disturbed. But be doss ens that still the home bad a right, he personally bad a right to have the matter fully in blet..,itaotlelyd,uwwhilti,bewliiiileeths • hon u o c ur ers w w o o ulj d be be fo c u o n v d e to red with Infamy and diesrace. The hon. member concluded by making the motion which is inserted at the commencement of his speech. Sir T. GRAHAM bad come down to the house prepared to address himself to a motion embracing a large question of public policy coupled with a considerable amount of personal accusation against himself. The hon. member for Kamm borough bad, however, departed from the terms of his mo tion, had given up the question of general policy, and con fined himself wholly to the personal attack.. He (Sir J. Graham) had thought that hisretirement from her Majesty's service to the present station which he then occupied, and the Bence be had observed for several months giving offence to no one, might have mitigated the bitter hostility with which the hon. member for Knaresbornegh delighted to pursue him. He had been disappointed in this expectation, but at the same time he was prepared to make every allowance for the hon. member's peculiar position. The hon. member bad told them, that statements made under the pressure of an indictment for misdemeanour should be received with great allowance. Now he thought it right to recall the attention of the house to the circumstances under which the honourable member had delivered his speech. He should endeavour, shortly, temperately, but firmly, to touch upon each subject introduced by the honourable member, the principal one being what the hon. member for Shrewsbury had termed the celebrated Mott case. This case was first brought under notice in 1842, and with the permission of the house he would recall the cir cumstance of its first introduction. The allegation then made was, that he and one or more of the poor-law commis sioners had conspired to procure a false report for the pur pose of injuring the hon. member for Knaresborough. In 1812, the accusation had not assumed a substantive form, the hon. member being then satisfied with denying the truth of the reports of Sir J. Walsham and Mr. Mott. He was ad vised by the hon. and gallant member for Marylebone to press for a committee to inquite into their truth, but he declined. The first allegation was, that this committee was packed. NOW he would read the names of the members of that com mittee—Sir C. Napier, Mr. Childers. Mr. Pakangton, Sir J. Trollope, Col, Wood, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. W. Williams, Mr. Ablaut, Mr. Grimsditch, Capt. Pechell, Mr. Bolton Clive, Mr. Colville, and Mr. T. Duncombe. (Hear, hear.) And what was the report which the bon. member had designated a tisane of trumped up falsehoods? (Hear.) The charges brought by the hon. member were, first, that the report of Mr. Mott was fake; and secondly, that the report of Sir John Waltham was Wee. The report of the committee dealt separately with the two cases. It said, with regard to Mr. Mott's report, that it was borne out in all its most important allegations by the evidence of the very witnesses called to impugn it; and as to Sir J. WaLhanes, the committee said that no attempt had been made to impugn its general accuracy, nor, with one or two trifling and immaterial exceptions, any of the details. (Hear.) And this was what the hon. member had desig nated " tramped up falsehoods." Mr. FERRAND: I did not say so. Sir J. GRAHAM had taken a note of the words, hut should be glad to know that the hon. member wished to retract them. Mr. FERRAND : I said • tramped up report." Sir J. GRAHAM : It was fur the house to say whether the description of the report given by the hon. member, could not rest where It now stood--en appeal having been fortunately made to the right tribunal. There and there only was he prepared to enter into a full explanation of the point peculiarly affecting the hon. mi rulttr, and there he would be ready to give that explanation which his sense of duty prevented hid from offering on the present occasion. t The right hon. baronet, who spoke with remarkable cool ness. was much cheered on resuming his seat.) Dr. BOWRING, in explanation, observed that he be lieved it was owing to a complaint he had made of the manner in which Mr. Mott had conducted the inquiry into the state of things in Bolton, t h at that gentleman had been dismissed. At leant he had looked upon his dismissal as an acknowledgment of the truth and justice of his com- plaint. Mr. DISRAELI quite agreed in the reason of the right hen. gentleman for not giving an answer to the charge, namely, that that house was not the proper tribunal. But where had the question originated ? Was It before the Lord Chief Justice of England to whom the right hon. gentleman had appealed ? No. The hon. member for Knaresborough, without political connexions, aim at a soli tary member in that house, had been dragged forward under circumstances so remarkable that they were not likely to recur very soon again in the history of the country. They had then at the head of affairs the most powerful minister of the last century, and who might have remained the most power ful. But, as Hippocrates had well observed, too much pros perity sometimes made a man insane. (A laugh) Well, they had this powerful minister and his Mace donian army arrayed against this solitary indivi dual, who chose to express what might be a rude but what was certainly an honest conviction. He could not have appealed to a generous opposition to sup port him, because, at the time, the opposition minty con sisted of a predominant party, which that t. dividual had par ticularly offended—the manufacturing party between whom and the government V the day there existed, though not announced, a virtual alliance. Under such circumstances was it that the hon. member had been brought forward as a victim, and that the house had placed upon its journals • resolution not to his dishonour, but to the dim:mite of the house itself. Such language, in such a form, ought to be reserved for high criminals, and not used as a punishment for a mau in his position. When be saw that that man, bowere r he might be in error, had, for stating his honest conviction upon a great subject of great national interest, and for expressing, against the most powerful individual in the country, the feelings of his heart, been solemnly re corded as a calumniat or by the assembled Commons of Eng • land, be oould not persuade himself that it told well for their reputation : certain he was that it did not tell well for their political courage. (Hear, hear.) It was now said that the matter should be settled before another tribunal. He did not deny it, for be could not for a moment suppose that the hon. member fur Knaresborough appealed to the house for its interference in the present state of the question. The right hon. gentleman stopped the question at once, but after what had passed, he (Mr. D'lmaeli) took it for granted that there would be no delay ' he took it fur granted that Mr. Lewis would appear in the witness-box, and the question would bo settled for ever. He hoped that his honourablo friend, after the speech of the right hon. gentle man, would not divide the house. Mr. ROEBUCK said, that the question came before the House in this simple form. A member of that House had charged a minister of the crown with suborning em of his officers to fabricate a false report for the purpose of destroy ing the character of that member. They were then told that the matter ought not to bo brought before the house. The operation of this law was said to be directed by a minister, so as to make it bear unjustly on the poor. Was that house not the place where such a charge should be sifted and brought home to the mi nister, who was said to have acted so base a part ? Wu it not the special mission of that house to protect the poor from such bane proceeding* on the part of any minister? Mr. NEWDEGATE advised the hon. member for Bath not to peraevere in • course of conduct in that house which was such as to induce the country to believe that he was not so kind and honourable in private as he really wan. Lord J. RUSSELL said the hon. member for Shrewsbury had told the house that when he came down to the house this evening he found that the hon. member for Knares borough had left out a moiety of his motion, and that in doing no he had exercised a wise discretion. It was ap parent from the speech of the hon. member that he thought that if the other moiety had been omitted also it would have been equally discreet. (Cheers and laughter) He (Lord J. Russell) never knew a motion which was less to the purpose of the business of the house. It was a motion compounded of various questions which had been already decided, and by stating over and over again the grounds of those questions the hon. member seemed to think that he could induce the house to inquire into matters which had been already considered, and on which the house had given its decision. With regard to the charge that the late Secretary of State and the poor-law commissioners had conspired to prepare a false report, as the hon. member for Bath truly said, it hadi been considered, and the house had come to nearly a unanimous decision. As far as the house was concerned, that question had been disposed of. What made it peculiarly improper that it should be introduced again was that the matter was pending in a court of law; and the house having done its duty, the future disposition of the matter did not rest there, but in the Court of Queen's Bench. With regard to the case of Mr. Clements, it was heard at the time, and the house, with a full knowledge of the facts, decided upon it. The hon. member for Knaresborough, in order to eke out his invec tives, brought forward the documents published by the Andover committee only for the general purpose of casting blame on the right hon. baronet and the poor-law commis sioners. As regarded this, he would only make one observa tion. Tho hon. member for Knaresborough had quoted Mr. Cosmic as an authority to prove the severity of the con duct of the poor-law commissioners, and blaming them for making improper appointments. But the evidence given before the Andover committee was conclusive as to one thing—namely, that the servants of the poor law commissioners bad not acted with the fidelity that became them. (Hear, hear, hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) did not know how the sacretaries of state were to carry on the duties of their offices aatisfactorily if the under secretaries and subordinate officers were to behove in the I manner which it appeared from the evidence given beim the Andover committee that the gentlemen holding came under the poor-law commissioners had done. (Hear, hear.) With this reflection he should dismiss all the charges against the poor-law commissioners, which were founded on the evidence of their subordinates. With regard to the poor-law, it was beside the question of to night whether it was a wise enactment or not. It might be a tyrannical law, but the right hon. baronet and the poor-law commissioners were bound to act honestly under it, and administer it as well as they could, and it was his (Lord J. Russell's) belief that they did act honestly in its administration. The hon. member fur Knaresborough might be sincere in his denunciations of the law, but it was carrying forbearance towards sincerity too far, if, because he was sincere, he might be allowed to say that false docu ments had been procured to deceive the house. (Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL had no wish to enter into the discussion of this question, particularly as it was pending in a tribunal which was better adapted to deal dispassionately with it. He should have made no remark but for an observation of the hon. member for Shrewsbury, which seemed to impute to him (Sir R. Peel) that he had used any power he might have possessed to wrong the hon. member for Knaresborough. If any other member of the house believed that the charge was well founded be would refer him to the records of tlu transaction, and then ask him to decide whether he (Sir R. Peel), had used any power which the position he then occu pied gave hint for the purpose of wronging the hon. mem ber for Knaresborougb. That hon. member made a against the Secretary of State that, for the purpose of mg an independent member while in the discharge of his parliamentary functions and duties, a minister had induced his subordinate officers to make a false report. This was not the only charge ; there was another against the hon. menhir for Beverley, that while acting as chairman of the seise committee for deciding on the 'Nottingham election, he ha sided the government and his right hon. friend in unseating ' Mr. Walter, thus violating his oath by an unjust decision. Those charges were noticed not by him (Sir R. Peel), but bg • member of the house, who inquired if those so e Wooded to remain silent ? The hon. member for Bever el and his right hon. friend came forward to meet those charges. It was his (Sir R. Peel's) duty in the position he then held to offer his advice to the house as tot become they were to pursue. Who overheard of a minister of the Crown to whom the house did not look for advice is its proceedings ) If those proceedings were referred to, it would be found that he had advised the house to act with forbearance. When the charges were first brought before the house, he advised that there should not be an immediate decision, but that some delay should take place. He thought that the honourable member for Knarcaborough would either admit that the charges were unfounded, or substantiate them. He repeated the charges, but declined to give any satisfactory explanation. A second time he (Sr it. Peel) advised that the hon. member should be called on to appear before the house. lie did so, but still persisted in his charges, and it seemed to him (Sir R. Peel) that the house could have taken no other course than they did. It became his duty to move the reaolutiens, and so far from their being pasted in consequence of the exercise of any in fluence by him, he believed that no resolutions were ever carried with greater unanimity of feeling in that house, and nothing could be more unjust than to my that he had used as u ndue influence, or been actuated by any vindictive feeling. (Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. CHRISTIE exculpated Mr. Jenkyn Jones, and con cluded by stating that he never entertained an idea that the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham), had sent Mr. Mott down to make an incorrect report as to the Keigbley Union. (Hear. hear.) Sir C. NAPIER bad moved for the committee after the hon. member for Knareaborough had dragooned the house into the appointing of a committee, Mating that he would prove before it all the assertions be had made. The hon. gentleman was a member of that committee, and made no objection to any member on it. Hu (Sir C. Napier) believed the report to be a very fair one. Mr. VILLIERS said the manly and candid manner in which the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) had met the charges which had been made against him rendered it un necessary to say a word more on the subject--(hear, hear)—• and he merely rose to my that the charges which the bon, member for Knaresborough had made against Mr. Lewis were unsupported by one tittle of evidence, and he believed they were utterly false. The charges against Mr. Mott were, he believed, equally unfounded. (Hear.) Mr. FERRA ND, in reply, said he would not press his mo tion' since the right hon. but. (Sir J. Graham) had stated that both Mr. Lewis and himself would appear in a witness-box ; that was all he wished ; and he hoped the trial would, at once, take place. The right hon. baronet said that he had had an opportunity of examining Mr. Mott before the committee, which he did not avail himself of. He had not bad that opportunity, for it was decided that he should not be examined as to hie con- duct as assistant poor-law ummissioner. He was also said to have made use of a trumped up report. He could not believe that it was a trumped up report when he recollected that it was drawn up by the hon. member fir Finsbury, who was the right hon. g• otlemin's bosom friend in the time of his youth. It was then stated that he delayed in replying to a letter from Mr. Lewis's solicitor. He delayed writ ng to the solicitor until he had written to the editor of the Times newspaper, and received an answer to the effect that jibe vknowledged being the writer of the letter which appeared in that newspaper, the Times woul•l be In demnified. The right hon. baronet stated that he imputed corrupt motives to Mr. Twisleton. He did nothing of the kind. All he said was that he went to Paisley incognito to do certain services for certain members of the government, which fact was borne out by evidence given before a commit tee. The right hon. baronet, the late First Lord of the Treasury, said that he repeated the statements in this house which he made in Leeds. He never did anything of the sort. All he said was, that the report in the Times was true, and that the house could not proceed against him. With regard to what fell from the hon. member for Wolver hampton, he begged leave to tell him that es to any language that fell from his lips he was prepared to stand by, either in or out of that house. He begged then to withdraw his motion. Sir F. THESIGER said, that respecting what fell from the hon. member for Knaresborough as to an v delay in the trial of the case, he had oaly to inform him that if he ouly pleaded as soon as possible, then the matter would be vat down for trial, it would be tried in its proper turn. CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS l,i THE NAVY. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number of cor poral punishments, and the number of lashes in each punish ment, on board her Majesty's ship the Amason, Captain Stopford, during the time of his command ; stating the num ber of the establishment of that ship, and the stations on which serving during thas time, with this addition, that after the word " punishment," there be inserted the words " and the offences for which inflicted." Mr. H. G. WARD observed that this was not a fit time to press such a motion. It was impossible not to concur with the hon. gent, in the sentiment which he expri sued as to the diminution of punishment in the army and navy. But as the minut s of the trial of Capt.in Stopford hail not as yet reached England, nor the exculpatory dream stances which induced the court to acquit him, he thought that nothing could be more unjust in his absence than to publish certain matters which might press he►vily against hun. They could not receive the minutes of the trier before the arrival of the next packet, and he would not pledge himself that even then it would be in his power to comply with the wish of his hon. friend. Sir C. Napier was not going to justify Captain Stopford, but he thought it very cruel in the honourable member to move for these minutes in the absence of Captain Stop ford, who, at the time, had ao possibility of defending himself. Mr. WILLIAMS said that his hon. friend's motion was not met. He did not ask for the minutes. All he wanted was, to waist the admiralty in carrying out their intention. Capt. HARRIS denied the amnion of the last speaker, • that the decrease in corporal punishments was not at all attributable to the increased humanity of naval com a menders. Viscount INGESTRE said that no ditty was so painful to the feelings of an officer as the infliction of punishment. • It was absolutely necessary for the safety of the navy, espia -1 dilly with disorderly crews, that the power of prompt t punishment should be vested in the eommauclicg officers. Mr. HUME replied, urging that his motion ought to be acceded to on public grounds, apart from any consideration of the court martial recently held. Mr. HUME ultimately withdrew his motion. COMMITTEE ON TILE LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Oa the motion of Sir G. GREY, the name of Mr. Henley wad inserted, in lieu of that of Mr. Hindley, on the list of this committee. The house adjourned at a quarter-past twelve. - 511, 0 4 I preoo. MAILS. The mails for New South Wales, Were Diemen's Land, and New Zealand will be made up on the evening of the tat February. The West India mails, including those for Mezioo, Ilnarinras, and the ilarannah, will be made up on the morning of the 2nd February. The mails for British North America, Bermuda, and the United States, will be made up on the evening of the 3rd February. Tbs. overland inane the Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, the lonian Islands, Egypt, Men, Ceylon, India, (long-Kong, and China, via Southampton, will be made up on the morning of the 3rd of February. The mails for the Brazils, the River Plate, Monte Vidio Pernam boon, Bahia, Ma tetra, and Buenos Ayres, will be dispatelisti on the evening of the lth February. The mails for Vigo, Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, Cadiz, and Gibraltar, will be made up on the rooming of the Bth February. The overland dosed mails, ria Marseilles, to the Mediterranean, Egypt, Aden, Ces ton. India, hang hong, Be., will be made up on the evening of the Sth February.! TO CORRESPONDENTS. We cannot notice, in any way, any oxamunication that is sent to us anonymously ; but Mae whochoose to address no in confidence will find their cmildence respected. NEITLIERCAN WE UNDERTAKE TJ RETL RN ANY MANUSCRIPTS WHATEVER. Advertisement& intended for The Eritrea, London evening paper, 111 mit be at the Office by Two o'clock on the day of publication. mon WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE. Tau DAY. —34torung, 40 nun. pent 0; Afternoon, 7 dn. prt 1. To-Morow 32 mix. prt 1; Afternoon, 04 min. par I. LONDON, FRIDAY, JAN. 29. WE are no advocates for war, and hold the anima ratio mum in the full abhorrence which Lord STANLEY asserts to be the universal feeling. We think it hard, nevertheless, to have to pay some of the severest penalties of war, while we are profess edly at peace. When all Europe was banded against us. we knew how to keep the enemy off our shores. We protected our allies and commanded the respect of our enemies. We are now serving as the treasury of those who are thwarting our policy to serve their own ends, and are forced to sacrifice friendships in order to pacify undisguised aggressors. The abandonment of Cracow throws a whole popu lation of brave and enduring soldiers into the arms of the moat restless power in Europe. Hopeless in appealing to the West, the .Poles will try to make terms with the eastern despots. Warned by the example of the Poles, the other nations of Europe will suppress, for years, their longing after liberty, and will struggle on in their unhealthy social condition, not formidable, perhaps, as rivals, but useless as friends. Italy is, for the moment, foremost in the march of progress. The Austrian Cabinet is avow edly menacing in its behaviour towards Sardinia, and covertly so in its relations to the Pope. Switzerland has received notice of an intention on the part of the despotic powers to control the internal policy of the federation. The tone that prevails in the press of Germany, supposed to be under Austrian influence, when spesk , ing of tho claim of France to a voice in the leading questions of European policy, is threatening. The French opposition papers are Rot slow in pointing out the fact, as well as the possible consequences, when a less versatile minister than M. GUIZOT shall assume the guidance of the French councils. In all these squabbles, important or insignificant, it seems we can do nothing but supply gold to renew the exhausted coffers, and still more waning credit, of those who are daily insulting us. The gold in the coffers of the Bank of England is a brilliant testimony to the skill of our manufacturers and our merchants during a season of unexampled com petition. For more than thirty years all Europe has had equal advantages with ourselves in the race of xoduction. If we take the operation of our corn- I laws into account, our producers have had odds against them ; and yet is the bullion in the Bank cellars a proof of the number of foreign buyers which their enterprise and skill have commanded. In the same month in which France endangers the peace of Europe by violating the compact most essential to its preservation, the Bank of France is compelled to seek aid from this fund. We are no fnends of metallic hoards, and deem that money was invented for circulation. Still, we are firmly of opinion that those who seek, at our hands, the benefits of peace and friendship, should acknowledge that they are bound to maintain a state of things that may one day enable them to repay the obligation. Speaking as mer cantile calculators, our gold would sell dearer to France, were we at open war, than it probably has cost our neighbours on the present terms of a dubious alliance. The powers that committed the aggression upon Cracow, which has been so vehemently denounced in the parliaments, both of France and England, aro no better circumstanced with regard to their finances than France. They have each less of hoarded bullion, and their credit is far more limited than that which France can exert. Yet have they ventured on the reckless policy of states that have nothing to hope from peace, and nothing to fear from the ravages of war' Prussia, whose finances under the reign of the late kin attained a wonderfully flourishing condition, has been obliged to attempt a mode of raising funds that baa shaken public confidence to its foundation. To avoid coming into the market with a direct proposal far a loan, the dormant establishment of the Royal Beek of Berlin has been revived and empowered to patine notes. The German papers now tell us that the propriety of reducing the rate of discount was se nonsly discussed at this bank last week, in the face of the advance of discounts in Paris and London. This affords some criterion of the anxiety shown in Prussia by the mercantile world to take the new notes. We may venture, without any claim to peculiar inspi ration, to predict that if the Prussian King would renounce his oriental connexions, and take the place to which he is called as sovereign of a highly culti vated nation amongst the leaders of civilisation in Europe, his notes would find their way into circula tion without a premium. As things now stand, it is in the power of either France or England to paralyse all the efforts making to keep up credit iu Prussia. We mentioned some time back the financial opera tions of the court of St. Petersburg. The command is red ihe Bank of Warsaw to foreclosi the mort gages on the estates of the Polish proprietors was an experiment not unlike the Emperor's attempt to mai a half-frozen river on the ice. Where there is nothing solid to tread on, even the Czar must expect to fan like other men. The Polish lords are non to receive notes to enable them to pay off their ineunibrancea. The value of those notes would be severely tested if la Queen's messenger appeared in a frigate off Cron atedt to inquire after the fate of Cracow. With regard to Austria, the declining powers of her leading statesmen are singularly revealed in the scrape, into which she has been led. With scarcely power to support the dignity of its centralized authority at home, the govern meat has been seduced into an act of agree @ion which might almost break up the empire. Hungary, Bohemia, and Lombardy have grown up to independent states, that have long scarech done more than acquiesce in the preponderance of the Germanic element that Vienna represents. The slightest symp tom of disaffection in any province necessitates an augmentation of the army in all the provinces. The Gallician tragedy was aggravated by the anxiety of revolt in other parts of this sensitive body politic. The expenses thus incurred, added to the shaken state of public credit, make a loan inevitable. lint Baron 'WT116(.111(.1) is said to be difficult to treat with. He sake for good security. This is natural enough, and rumour says that the government intends to comply with the request. Rut here the said rumour puts on so fright ful an appearance, that even the Baron would be startled if the fiction were to prove a reality. We must report what we have heard for two reasons. We are bound to give warning to all whom it way concern, awl we are not responsible for mere reports. Our information is to the purport that the 'states and other endowments of the pious and charitable institu tions of Lombardy and Venice are to be kequestrated for the use of the state. Debentures, bearing interest, are to be given to the Italians in lien of the munificent donations of their fathers. Our readers will not expect us here to discussthe merits of such a mode of proceed ing. We would only point to the critical aspect of the period when it is proposed, if proposed it be. Ow object is to show that we are somewhat unfairly en tangled in our relations of peace and amity, if it be the intention of the continental powers to continue their present aggressive policy. Trade has been paralysed, credit unhinged, and general alarm excited since France, by threatening the independence of Spain. afforded an excuse to the northern powers to annihilate the last fragment of the independence of Poland. Two questions of some import ance suggest themselves on a review os present circumstances. The first regards the nature of the security on which it is advisable to advance bullion to France to pay off debts in Algiers and perhaps in Spain. The second question is, whether, we could not by proper management obtain from our own colonies or from Ireland many of those products for which we are sending gold to St. Petersburg, on account of the check which the apprehension of war has given to our exports to Germany. EVERT one must have remarked the favourable sensation made in the Hew of Commons when Lord JOHN Ressem. announced the extension of the Irish Poor Law. The general feeling was not so much a conviction of the worth or perfection of such a law, as that not other law was at all likely to seize and bind the a ippery limbs of the Irish landlords. The wholesale and stringent way of making the property of Ireland support its poverty was evidently to decree a poor law. We do not think this either sufficient or efficient. For Irish property is not able, in its ignorance, and passiveness, and em barrassments, to pull up Irish poverty to it. On the contrary, tying them together may enable the poverty to pull down the property with it, and drown both in a common grave. fo avoid thle, it will be requisite to teach Irish property how to deul with the poverty dependent upon it, so as to improve, and cherish, and elevate it. The permanent measures for Irish relief arc no doubt intended to do this; and on their success depends much of the success of an Irish poor law. We yesterday published the clauses of the bill about to be propoted. Their nature, however, has been long known. They are, first of all, to render the support of the infirm imperative on the overseer or guardian. As to the able-bodied and unemployed poor, the Lord-Lieutenant, or the persons charged with the administration of the poor law under him, may ens power any district to give out-door relief to such as are within it. Wise and charitable as this may be u a temporary measure, its permanence may lead to many difficulties. In Ireland, the whole labouring population is out of employ in the intervals between preparing the ground fur seed and harvest-time. All Ireland. therefore, may demand of the guardians of the poor to feed them ; and thus in any year, as much as in 1846, the knowledge that they are entitled to and may ask for public support, will have its effect on the peasantry. They will ask. None of them have house, or cow, or furniture, or aught to distinguish them from paupers. Will the workhouse test deter f Can a dietary be invented lower than the potato-meel of the Irish peasant? If the other stringent portion of the workhouse—the immuring the whole family—be insisted on. a very small portion of the population will soon fill any workhouse. Then, in addition to the straggles and manceuvre of the peasantry, will come the struggles and manotuvres of the Irish landlord. It will at ones be perceived by both, that the great Poor Law power is wielded by the Lord-Lieutenant, or by the chief immediately subordinate to him. It is, therefore, es the government of Ireland that the landlord will ap peal for lenient treatment ; and it is against te government that he will be incensed, if the , r law be enforced. For the enforcement is not a ...lately ordained by the law. It is altogether at the will el the Poor Law Commieion in Ireland and d the Lord-Lieutenant. Whoever will reflect upon what has passed in Ireland during the last tans months, must eee that this law, which does not decree the execution of a poor law, but leaves it to an Irish government to enforce or relax in particular district, will have the effect of placing the Irish government and the Irish peasantry and gentry in such relative posi tions, as that the government must be overborne. We admit the disadvantages and difficulties of governee Ireland from England. But we do also percale most tremendous difficulties in the way of admit's tering an Irish poor law by arbitrary and fiethe authority, placed in Ireland. A Poor Law for Ireland will, however, be perse vered in and extended. The short end of that wedge has been introduced, and, as parliament Kee nothing else, in the way of an effectual and universal re medy, to hammer at, it will drive that wedge . wilk energy and good will, allowing even all the duce panmes and awkward effects to accrue, with the hope of applying special remedies to them, and the doctoring Ireland into something like England. We de not think that a Poor Law fully curried out is at preset applicable in the districts of Ireland where remanent most called for. And we are afraid that Ireland ought to be first prepared, by very radical reforms, for the establishment of a Poor Law. But the expe riment will soon work out itself, and as full power is left to the Irish government to suspend or enforce the full principle, the experiment can be made with out rigour. The only fear is, that no Irish govern meet will be strong enough to enforce it impartially, end that the very possession and exercise of such power by the government may tempt en " Irish party" to coquet with repeal, and play a hundred pranks to thwart the purposes of ministers. These reasons, however, will not weigh with the House of Commons. That house, which makes mi nisters weak, and expects them to be strong, will gladly confer the powers demanded by these see, and give its good wishes for their being strenuously and successfully acted on. The difficulties will be is the execution ; and if the operation of such laws te obstructed at once by the insidious enmity of the Irish landlords, and by the never-failing attacks of the re• peelers, it will prove but a new torch of discord throws amongst the many already flaming. Mr. SMITH O'Beine cannot indeed but support a plan, which he was al most the first to propose . But " old Ireland " beta a Poor Law, and .Mr. O'CONNELL, we suppose • oil continue to thunder against a .ncasure, which he de nounced from the first as "calculated to destroy the remunerative qualities of Irish poverty." S. .1.,