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

Tilt SUN,LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 184'. discuss would have ampl e opp o rt un ity at a future period to these questions, but he must he allowed to say, that nothing convinced him more of the rottenness of its Principle or its debasing effects upon the food of this country than that it received its death-blow in a poor 'use squabble. It had its origin in a dark document, " ti ll yilstrern,herrend um , i n f orme , i ngens , cu i l umen a d em ptum." ; I d until th a t d ocument was dragge d i nto t h e li g h t o f its existence was denied, not only in that House, but t ie other places. So effectually had that law carried i', ll t o hle intentions of its authors, that in the union houses tamly induced the poor to live on the coarsest food, I ft it had degraded them, that they not only eat the 'ft* but they fought for the stinking bones which they, were grinding for the fields. No wonder, :nos that a new spirit had arisen up lllreghout the country until even the defenders of the measure was compelled to admit diet the law as it 344 4 re could no longer be enforced, and their must be a i! ate la Ocelling of the system. He could tell the Noble dat th e h ea d o f t h e G overnment , t h at no remodel ling of thi s system woul d sat i sf y t h e people of this coun- S, for they would never rest till justice was done to nice' feelings by a total repeal of this infamous and creel law. In bringing forward to the notice of this tissue the motion which he had placed on the votes, he o pinion e n d eavour to show fi rst o f a ll w h a t h a d been the :talon of th e P oor •l a w Commissioners themselves as thela inem sof those others who had identified themselves with carrying out this law, and in doing so he :ield only quote Parliamentary documents, the truth "I which no one cou ld d e ny, because they had undergone the most rigid examination, and if the truth of these do • Cements was denied within the walls of the House that evening, e he (Mr. Ferrand) asserted that that was a double, reason why a committee of inquiry should be granted to him. But let the House listen for a moment le the opinions of these administrators themselves, — a body of men to whom this Act had delegated au un ,constitutional and illegal power, the power of making . • L aws•evnich the people of this country were justified in resisting, even until death. He sa w sittin g in t he House her Majesty's late Attorney-Ge n4kerale and he challenged him to prove that laws of the Poor-law Commissioners had been founded in any law of the country. No officer of the Crown had as yet dared to broach such a doctrine, and until it was clearly proved that the law was binding 11 P °11 the people of this country he (Mr. Ferrand) would assert that it was their duty to resist, and as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he never would assist in enforcing it ; neither would he, in his capacity of a magistrate, even when called on to assist in quel ling any riot arising from the infringement of the law, do so. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read from the evidence taken before the Andover Committee. In the answer of Mr. Lewis to a question of the Com mittee, he avouched that the Commissioners might discharge any assistant commissioner without assigning R reason. Mr. Chadwick said that on the 30th July he ..aired to Mr. Lewis, who was considered to be the gentleman most confidentially connected with the Secre t:al of State for the Home Department, of some expres sions used lay the Right Hon. Baronet regarding him, but Mr. Lewis's answer was, that he could get no re dress. And what did Mr. Chadwick complain of ? He complained that the late Secretary retary of State for the Home Department had charged with using cruel and ill tempered language, which ha d , h im in fact, been used by Mr. Lewis himself ; and in the evidence before the Commit tee, w hen Mr. Christie put the question, whether that letter had not been commented upon ?Mr. Chadwick replied, " No, never." Now, he (Mr. Ferranti) would ask, was it not hard that Mr. Chadwick should be ac cused of what he was not guilty ? And the chairman, in putting a question to Mr. Parker, and he (Mr. Fer rand), in justice to himself, would ask the Members of that. House to listen to what he was about to read to them ; for if there had not been a great anxiety to screen the authors of the unjust attack upon him, the evidence which he would now read to the House would never have been struck out of the evidence of the Committee. To the question of the Chairman, Mr. Parker replied that he had received notice from Mr. Lewis to go to the Andover union, and to report upon it ; and Mr. Parker was proceeding to inform the Committee of the late Se cretary of States's instruction in the matter, when the Chairman told him to confine himself as much as pos sible to the Commissioners ; but Mr. Parker was deter mined that the truth should come out, and more would come out yet, and that at no distant day. The state ments made by the Home Secretary at that time was left uncontradicted ; and he had no hesitation in saying that the Right Hon. Baronet had allowed those under him to lie under a false imputation. The room was, after the asking of the question cleared ; and Mr. Man ners Sutton, the Under Secretary of State, struck his pen through that portion of Mr. Parker's evidence, and it did not appear in the Blue Book. Now, let them hear the statement of Sir F. Lewis. He said in answer to a question from the chairman that he considered Mr. Chadwick was an able man, but at the same time he thought him a dangerous and unscrupulous officer. Did they discharge Mr. Chadwick? No: Mr. Chadwick still remained se cretary to the Poor-law Commissioners. They dared not dismiss him. If they did he might tell that which might not be for the benefit of the Poor-law Corn-. miasionerr. He would now turn to another portion of the evidence. There was a clerk of the name of Jenkin Jones in the office. He was excessively useful to the Poor-law Commissioners, and Jenkin Jones thought he was not sufficiently paid for his services, and by way of rendering a service to a friend he got him in troduced into the office as a clerk, for which be re ceived a sum of money. Mr. Lewis examined Mr. Jones as to his conduct in relation to this affair, but instead of telling him that he was guilty of a mis demeanour, as it was his duty to have said, he get all out of poor Jenkin Jones that he could, and teen he was the most active man in the prosecution against him. The case went to trial, and after Jenkin Jones had been induced to plead guilty, on a promise that judgment would not be entered up against him, the late Secretary of the Home Department was declared to be adverse to any lenient course, although the Commis.. aioners themselves did not wish the case to go on, which called forth from Mr. Jervis the remarkable expression, remarkable because applied to the Right Hon. Baronet in consequence of the course he had pursued, " This man must be a brute." He would now, for the purpose of justifying the language used by Mr. Jervis on that occasion, quote the opinion of Mr. Coode, the Assistant Secretary. Mr. Parker had fallen into disfavour with the Poor-law Commissioners, and Mr. Coode, who had heard th a t a plot was laid, and that the scheme was being carried out at Somerset House, wrote to him to the following effect. Atter mentioning the plot be said, "I need not say how disgraceful the whole affair is, and how glad I shall be if their whole conduct turns out innocuous as they deserve, and I hope that their shabbiness will recoil on their own beads. If I do not what I can for yon, call me a rogue fit to serve my present masters." Now, this was Mr. Coode, the Assistant Secretary. Poor Mr. Coode was not long before he was sent about his business. This opinion of his was much too honest for them. lie had now given to the House the names and a few of the opinions of the Poor law Commissioners and their clerks. He would now bring before their notice three scenes, one of which had been enacted in that House, another in the Com mittee-room, and another in the police -court. The House would remember that the Honourable Member for Finsbury had put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet, and had asked him whether he would cause inquiry to be made as to certain reports current that the poor in the Andover Union were living on rotten flesh, and the Right lion. Baronet started up in his seat and said that he had never heard of it, but that inquiry would take place, and that that night he would send notice of the circumstance to the Poor-law Commissioners. He did so, and a person was sent down to Andover of all others he (Mr. Ferrand) would have thought the least qualified for the task, that person being the Assistant. Poor-law Commissioner who had this very poor-law union under his immediate care. lie was boned to say that this man, Mr. Parker, had fairly and fearlessly done his duty. lie drew up a statement which he embodied in a report, and he went to the Home-office, and having informed the Secretary of State of the result of his labours, he gave him the report. The Right Hon. Baronet, after some discussion with him and with Sir Edmund Head, tried to induce these two officers to agree to a statement which Was absolutely untrue—a statement which was con cocted for the purpose of deceiving that House. There (said the Hon. Member, addressing himself personally to Sir James Graham)—there was a Secretary of State for the Home Department teaching two public officers the art of dissimulation.—(Suppressed laughter.) How could these men be expected to perform their duties when the Right Hon. Baronet had asked them to agree to a statement which he should make to this House for purposes of dissimulation. He (alr. Ferrand was ,enabled to tell the House what occurred at this inter view. Sir James Graham said—" Now, what must I tell the House about this business. It will never do to bring forward this report—l'll tell you what I'll say : I'll begin by adverting to bone crushing and unions— shall th e n adv e rt to th report of the commissioners—l shall state that I had an interview with Mr. Parker, who verbally reported to me the result of his investi gations, that some of the inmate& of depraved appetite* had taken the meat off the bones, and that the matter had been referred to the surgeons of the anion. If, I say, that communication was made orally, that will en f flee for the House." That was the evidence given b; Mr. Parker before the Andover Uniea why did tte nit' and if that evidence was untrue, the Secretary of State go down to the committee and prove it to be so ? But what a picture this was for a country to view! They had here a Secretary of State for the Home Department who had been Secretary of State for six years, during which time the Poor-law Commissioners had been bit poppets, and be h a d p u lled the strings.—(Lauebter) r. Le w i s had b een th e " go-between." He had received the in structions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he had faithfully conveyed these instructions to the lesser officials. The Hulse would now see the scene in the committee-room. On the Bth ,of August, 1846, Mr. Christie put to Mr. Parker the question:—" Are the Comm ittee in the habit of exerci s i ng a control over the Assistant -Secretary and the clerks, with respect to the evidence which they may he required to give?" This was a fair q uestion, for the Committee wa s aointed to make a searc hin g investi gation—but what followed? He (Mr. Ferrand) was not Present, but he had a copy of what passed, and he would read it to the House. " Mr. Sutton here rose, with great excitement of manner, and said, I must have the room cleared if this ques tion is to be put." He must have the room cleared. Why ? That the answer might not go forth to the wor ld. Th e room was cleare d , an d f or a consi derable time the Committee remained in consultation with closed doors. During the interval, Mr. Manners Sutton rushed out i an agitated as if isntate, Mr. St uar t Wortley followed,I! t the return of the parties, some mi nor p oints searcha udo o fs f ob evide nce were disposed of, an d th e Committee adjourned. Soon after this, a rumour began to spread that a meeting was likely to occur between the Under-Secretary of State and _.----. ...--- Mr. Christie—in fact that the Under-Secretary of State wished to shoot Mr. Christie because he had put this question to Mr. Parker. There never had been an answer given to that question, and if the House did not think that it required an answer, ho (Mr. Ferrand) kis , sv that the country expected one. There was the scene in the committee-room. He would now carry the House to the scene in the police-court. After the occurrence in the committee-room Mr. Parker at once proceeded to the Westminster Police-court, and there, to the astonishment of the worthy magistrate, answerable for the peace of the country to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applied-for a war rant against the Hon. Mr. John Henry Manners Sutton to have him bound over to keep the peace towards the Honourable Member for Weymouth. The warrant was granted, and a great-sized, robust police officer was dispatched to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, to intimate to him that his presence was required at the Police-office. Now, he asked the House, whether it was right, in the face of all this, to refuse him a committee cf inquiry, particularly after the answers of the witnesses in the Andover Union Committee, brought out conduct as cruel, as unjust, and he would add, as infamous as ever disgraced any public office in this kingdom. He was one of those whose character had been attempted to be destroyed by these very Poor-law Commissioners, because within these walls he had fearlessly, and to the best of his humble abilities, attempted to do his duty,—(Hear, hear.) Now, he asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department were these men yet in office ? Were these Poor-law Commissioners exercising their control over millions of their fellow-countrymen who were too poor to claim redress in the courts of law ; who had, indeed, no court to appeal to but that House. He demanded from the Secretary of State for the Home Department an an swer to that question—Were the present Government going to screen the commissioners from any further in quiry ? Were they going to league with the Members of the late Government, or had they coalesced with them to refuse him the inquiry ? If they had, of course the committee would be refuied him. But be knew well what the country would say to such conduct. The country would say that Government would not grant the inquiry, because they were afraid of further exposure.— (Hear, hear.) The House would remember, that some three or four years ago, he brought under the notice of the House an attempt of these Poor-law Commissioners to erect a treadmill in the union workhouse of the borough of Halifax. He made the statement upon the best authority, and yet the late Secretary of State for the Home Department got up in that House and contra dicted him in the flattest terms. Now, would the House believe that at that very moment the specifi cations, and plans, and estimate of cost of such a building, were recorded in the minutes of the board of guardians of that union. Mr. Clements, an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, made a report to bear out the statement of the Right Honourable Ba ronet the late Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment, and afterwards, when the chairman of the board of guardians remonstrated with him on his conduct, he shook his fist in that gentleman's face, declaring that what had been stated was false. Now, having given to the House a slight sketch of the conduct of the Poor law Commissioners, ho would now bring before them the great Jenkin Jones's CUP, for the purpose of show ing to the House how these Poor-law Commis sioners bad carried on the business of their office. Before, however, he did so, he would draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a circumstance that occurred in York shire a few years ago. In a particular district the Com missioners determined to establish a union workhouse, but the people resisted the attempt, and the military were called out to quell the disturbance. The conduct of the Commissioners was manifestly illegal, and had any man been killed, the magistrate who called in the military, and the officer who commanded them would have been guilty of murder. But to return to the Jenkin Jones's case. That person was charged with having sold an office, and after this charge had been preferred against him Mr. Jones wrote a letter to the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, impugning the conduct of Mr. Lewis, but no notice whatever was taken of that letter. It was clear, how ever, that Mr. Lewis and the Commissioners were afraid of Mr. Jones, who was a poor clerk at 2001. a year, while his antagonist, Mr. Lewis, received 2,0001, ten times as much as the former, for Mr. Coode, the secre tary of Mr. Lewis, waited upon Mr. Jones, and inti mated to that gentleman that if he would plead guilty to the charge of misdemeanour that had been brought against him be would not be called up for judgment. It was a trick, however, laid to catch Mr. Jones, and after he had incautiously acceded to the request and pleaded guilty he was thrown into prison. Now, he asked, was Mr. Lewis still a Poor law Commissioner, and if so, did Government intend that he should remain? The country demanded that an answer should be given to that question. The late Secretary of State for the Home Department could not deny having received Mr. Jones' letter, because its receipt was acknowledged by Captain O'Brien, who was at the time the Right Hon. Baronet's Secretary. He could easily imagine the _ alarm with which the Right lion. Baronet the late Secre tary of State for the Home Depai tment received that letter. No doubt, the Right Hon. Baronet immediately sent for Mr. Lewis, and said to him " This is a bad business. Here is this Jenkin Jones - going to tell all, and his month must be stopped. We must take care what we are doing." After Mr. Jones bad been three months in prison—his punishment was twelve months imprisonment—he petitioned the Home office for his discharge, but no notice was taken of his petition, and in the end he wrote a letter to Mr. Coode, intimating that no notice had been taken of his petition, and declaring that he would not allow the matter t. rest. In the end he was discharged, but at whose order Mr. Jones never could learn. The imprisonment did not in any may injure his reputation, and he was restored to his former situation in an insurance company, and on his return he was presented by the proprietors with 100 guineas. After quoting a quantity of the evidence taken before the Andover Committee the Honourable Gentleman went on to say he had a right to demand from the late Secretary of State for the Home Department what had become of the private letters of Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis himself said he could not find them, but the truth was, they had been destroyed, and it was the duty of the House to inquire how they were destroyed—whether they were burnt or purloined. Some of them would yet be forthcoming, for there were documents in existence which Government would be glad to possess again. They had not got them yet, and what was more they would not do so. lie would now bring under their notice some circumstances more immediately connected with himself. On a former occasion he de clared in that House that the Right Honourable Baronet the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had made a statement in the House which he knew was untrue. He now distinctly repeated that charge. He would tell the House the mode adopted by the Poor-law Commissioners, and the late Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment, in getting up reports for the purpose of crushing the Honourable and Learned Member fur Bolton, and himself. The person employed in this infamous conduct was a man named Mott, who formerly got his living by farming the poor in several large poor-houses in London, and who was an advocate of the Malthusian doctrine, of inducing the poor to live upon the commonest quality, and smallest quantity of food. Having recommended himself in this way, he became an assistant Poor-law Commissioner. He had been dismissed from this office, but was still kept in the employment of the Poor-law Commissioners in another capacity. Ho was now the editor and publisher of the " Poor-law Circular," a publication under the sanction and support of the Poor law Commissioners, at Somerset House. He sent a circular to the effect that, that the guardians would be allowed to take a certain number of copies of that paper, as it would relate only to matter& iu which they were officially interested. That concern soon became bankrupt, and in what character did they think Mr. Mott next appeared. Why, a partner in the management of lunatics with Mr. Coode, late Assistant- Commissioner. Good God ! Could anything be more monstrous ? He next appeared in the character of auditor of the district union and holding the office with the sanction of the Commis sioners of Somerset House. So much for that period ; but how had Mr. Mott been conducting himself lately? Why he had been obliged to fly his country, to avoid his creditors ; and was obliged to take refuge in the Isle of Man. (The Hon. Member here read an extract from the speech of the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, which contained charges on him, and proceed ed.) This was at a time when he was a magistrate for the county in which he resided, and nothing had been said to him about the matter. Now, that was not what he considered an honourable course to be pursued—an honourable course from one Englishman to another. Some opportunity ought to have been afforded to him of defending himself, but in this case there was none. Evi dence was given and received by Mr. Chadwick, and the report was sent by that gentleman to Mr. Mott. (The Hon. Member here read several extracts from the report in question), and continued—Some of the statements in that report were denied by witnesses of the most respect able character. That report was made on the 2d of June, and they should now hear how the Bolton report was drawn up. The Hon. and Learned Member for Bolton had made some statements in the House with respect to Bolton, and a special Commissioner was sent; and who did they select but this very Mr. Mott ? And let that House hear how he conducted himself. Mr. Mott went to Bolton, but never visited any single case brought before that House by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He resided there for some time ; and from the apathy which he displayed, and from the little advantage that was likely to result from his visit, the inhabitants of Bolton thought it would be better to make some move in the matter. themselves, and deputed Mr. Naseby to bring before his notice the case mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Doctor. Mr. Naseby called at Mr. Mott's resi dence, and he was told that Mr. Mott had gone to Lon don the day before ; but he looked through the window, M e saw ot Mott sMhorr. t M ly o a t f t te si r tt d in e g pa a r t te h d i , s eaansde.—th(eLßacullgtohn riwnat e s d d , r a a w n n d u pit was T h e sentH o u se to ordered thei n h t a h b a i t t a report f Bolton. But what happened ? Mr. Ashworth and twelve most respectable persons in Bolton and and was a singular proved fabrication. the :n ffi d a vi T t. he ßu H t o M n. r. m M e o na tt b 's e report here to getherthe neighbourhood appeared before the magistrates, andtit Report erb.p)eot there h e . h e h een e r e mdm s tuafarsdtoteemmt e xpre ss eht v n i 1 sa t st duty rebutting ua ntyhyi as a stour have functionaryhar vieseea imputed ml thate p g s u t t oe i uiodnlndst im proper oet read copious extracts from the report in questi r on rs farot statements t h t e a a m i v n e s e n wd l t i v S t a h t a h li d t motives, and accused of partisanship those who had adopted such proceedings. But still the'late Secre tary of State continued Mr. Mott in office. A communi cation was made which led to an application for the pro duction of papers with respect to this matter ; and there was a statement made by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, and when defending himself (Mr. Ferrand) he adduCed this evidence, together with lettere and documents, which he would take the liberty of submitting to the House. (The Honourable Member• here quoted extracts from the documents referred to, exculpatory of his conduct.) Referring to the conduct of the late Secretary of State for the Home Department in reference to himself (Mr. Ferrand), he thought there were scarcely any instance on record of an ex -Minister of that House having taken such an unfair advantage of a Member. He well remembered with what effect he (Sir James Graham) came down to that House and drew from the red-box the papers containing those charges against him (Mr. Ferrand), and the manner in which these accusa tions had been received by the House, and the conduct of the Noble Member for London on that occasion. But what were the consequences? There were, and are still, two gentlemen most active in carrying out that law, who had never since entered a court, or busied themselves in carrying it out. Sir John Walsham, in his statement, literally contradicted Mr. Mott in all his statements. The Right Hon. Baronet, Sir James Graham, then went on to say. "This was the state of things in the north of England—a district favoured too by the presence of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, and if he we re not tearful of troubling the House, he would complete the picture." The House cried out from all parts "Go on, go on. " Well," said the Right Hon. Baronet, " I will go on." And, accordingly he went on to show that " jobbing" was going on to a great extent, and that considerable encouragement was given to lawyers to create legal dis utes. There was not a single word of truth in the whole of that charge preferred by Mr. Mott, under the direction of the Right Hon. Baronet, and referred to by him upon that occasion, it was a c• mplete"trumped up' falsehood, the magistrates never interfered at all in the management of the Keighley Union. He (Mr. Ferrand) had been elected chairman of the board, without his consent or knowledge, but he never acted once upon the board, and upon hearing the false statement made, he immediately rose from his seat to deny the statement. There had been parties who had given information, where they received it from, he did not know, but he certainly did receive information between the 17th and 20th of June, that " foul work " was going on at Sower • set House with reference to the Keighley Union. Upon the receipt of that information, he (Mr. Ferrand) had stated in his place in the: House, that the Right Hon. Baronet Sir James Graham, had referred to a report of the 17th June, made by a paid Assistant and a public officer of the Government, who, for special purposes, had made a report, with a view to mislead the Government. That charge was never contradicted. On the 24th instant, the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury (Sir Robert Peel), addressed the House in favour of a new Poor-law. Upon that occasion, he (Mr. Ferrand) saw the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secre tary of State for the Home Department (Sir James Graham), lean forward to the red box, and the thought immediately struck him (Mr. Ferrand) that another false and calumnious report, prepared by the Governs meat tool (Mr. Mott), was about to be dragged into light, and used against him. But lo ! and behold, out came a commission prepared by Sir John-Welshem, upon the state of the workhouses in the Bingley Union, con taining the most horrifying statements about the living companioning the dead, and other disgraceful things. "Is it not then," continued the Right Honoerable Baronet, " time to interfere to put a stop to these disgraceful scenes ? Sir John Walsham received instructions (continued Mr. Ferrand, and ad dressing Sir James Graham, who sat behind him) from you to prepare this report. I challenge you to disprove it ; and I charged yeti with it at the time, and then called upon you to disprove it if you could." Upon that occasion the Right Hon. Baronet, addressing the House, said, that after that direct appeal which bad been made to him, he would endeavour to answer it in as few words as possible, and stated that Sir John Walsham beiree then at Barnley, lie (Sir James Graham) had sug gested to the Poorlaw Commissioners the propriety of Sir John Walsham paying a visit to the Keighley Union, in consequence of the dissatisfaction expresse d by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough at Mr. Mott's report ; and also to inquire into the order then just issued with reference to outdoor relief. Mr. Lewis (continued Mr. Ferrand), in his examination before the Committee, seid " that Sir John Walsham was sent to visit the Keighley workhouse, with directions from Sir James Graham." This was sufficient proof then that the Right Hon. Baronet was perfectly cogni sant of the visit of that gentleman to Keighley. Subse quently, he (Mr. Ferrand) moved for certain returns, which would have proved the falsehood of these reports. They were, however, refused by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). He (Mr. Ferrand) then appealed to the candour and' the manly feeling of the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) who, seeing that there was no chance of his obtaining a majority should the House divide upon the question, gate his assent at length, though he strenuously opposed it at first, to the production of the papers. A Select Committee was afterwards appointed, with considerable difficulty to inquire into the Keighley union. He (Mr. Ferrand) believed that Committee was packed, and ho would tell the House why. Sir Thomas Fremantle, who was called the Conservative whipper•in, came to him (Mr. Ferrand) with a list of persons, and asked him to select the members of his Comuittee. He (Mr. Ferrand) knowing that the case was so clear, said " it is no matter whom you take." Sir Thomas Fremantle then went to Colonel Wood, another Hon. Member of that House, re • questing to have his name on the Committee. The Hon. Member replied that he was about to leave town, and could not possibly serve. llis name was, however, still kept on the Cosensittee, and consequently they had one short of their number. Now, with reference to Mr. Mutt's report, he (Mr. Ferranti) could prove that false from this circumstance. Mr. Mott charged, in his report, that the Board of Guardians were acting in defiance of the orders of the Commissioners. In the documents which he had succeeded in obtaining, the Commissioners ad mitted that there was no evidence to show any disobe• dience to the orders of Somerset House. It was in the year 1844 that these papers were laid upon the table of e the House, and twelve months after the report made by Mr. Mutt upon the Bolton Union, in consequence of which report, or some reason known to the Hon. Mem ber for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), Mr. Mott was dismissed. Why, then, was Mr. Mott employed again after his previous dismissal? In a speech made by him (Mr. Ferrand) at Leeds, he stated that Sir James Graham had taken steps to prepare a report in order to crush an Hon. Member of that House, and that he had dismissed the poor tool who had been the instrument of preparing that report. On the 26th April, 1844, shortly after the date of hi s speec h at Leeds, Sir J. Graham said, in the House, that he had en deavoured to find any communication which had taken place between himself and Mr. Mott le ith reference to the Keighley Union, but he had not been able to do so. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) had not charged him with having any correspondence on the subject; he did not know that at that time he (Sir James Graham) was in con stant intercourse with Mr. Mott or Mr. Lewis. The Right lion. Baronet also said that he had endeavoured to recollect any conversation which took place between himself and the Poor-law Commissioners, but had not been able to recollect anything, neither had the Poor law Commissioners to whom he had spoken on the sulject been able to call to their recollection any verbal communications, or any correspondence upon the sub jcct. There was no wonder that they should not have been able to produce any correspondence, for he (Mr. Ferrand) believed that all those private communications were destroyed, and, with reference to his speaking to the Poor-law Commissioners, he (Mr. Ferranti) believed that Sir James Graham had never seen the whole of the Poor-law Commissioners,--Sir Frankland Lewis was the only one whom he was in the habit of seeing. Why, with reference to the instructions to Mr. Mutt, the truth was that Sir F. Lewis had filed in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the proceedings in the criminal ihformation obtained against himself (Mr. Ferrand), the very in structions which he wished. This is the mode (ad. dressing Sir James Graham) by which you have endea voured to crush me; but I submit that my character shall not be ruined in order to sustain yours. My cha racter is as dear to me as yours is, and the day will come when it will be proved, to the satisfaction of a jury and the country at large, that the instructions filed are not the only instructions given to Mr. Mott. The Hon. Member then went on to read to the House an affidavit which had been made and filed by a person of whom he knew nothing . whatever till the period of his offering to make the affidavit in question. It was the affidavit of a gentleman of the name of Barker, who, in the year 1842, was auditor of the Halifax union. The affidavit went on to state " that the deponent remembered Mott accompanying him to Keighley Union ; that he remembered him stat ing that he bad received instructions to visit and report on that union ' • deponent also stated that the statements of Sir J. Graharn respecting him (Mr. Ferrand) were false, unfouuded, and calumnious, and that the statement of him (Mr. Ferrand), with respect to Keighly Union, were true, and that he had documents in his possession to prove he believed the report was obtained by Sir J. Graham, for the purpose of being used against him (Mr. Ferrand) in the House; and, finally, that he believed Mr. Mott had received instructions to visit Keighly union." Now that was a gentleman of the highest character, whose fair name had never been tarnished by disho nour or disgrace, and who had never been convicted, in that House or out of it, of falsehood. He (Mr. Fer rand) trusted, therefore, that the House would bear with him whilst he attempted to expose the exertions which had been made to destroy his character, which, had it not been for the exposure which had taken place, all evidence taken before the Andover Committee might, to a certain extent, have been successful, and be and his posterity might have gone down to the - grave with his character stained, and his reputation tar nished by these most false and calumnious charges. He would now proceed to another part of the su bj e ct. The late Srcretary for the Home Department had robbed Mr. Day, an Assistant Poor-law Com missioner, of his situation, to give it to Mr. Twistleton. The Hon. Member here read the communication with Mr. Day, which alleged the cause of dismissal, the necessity of a reduction in the number of Poor-law Commissioners. In reply to that communication, Mr. Day wrote to Sir James Graham, but the Right Hon. Baronet declined to interfere, a nd said that he saw no reason to find fault ith the determination of the Poor-law Commissioners in the selection they had made. Thus, continued the Hon. Member, the late Secretary of State of his situation. He did interfere, and the statement about the reduction of Poor-law Commissioners ut terlywasfor the Home Department had rob_ bed Mr. Day if he branded Mr. Lewis with (Sir James Graham) her regions the evidence h falsehood? The lion. Member untrue. He ( Ferrand) would now ask him t wit reference to the Christie and Mr. S. Wortley, .plyuest from Mr. Commissioners, from which it Mr. Mott was influenced appeared that the dismissal o steep reduction by of M rt Lewis,oo by Sir J. Grsham to given by a desire to fulfil promise Poor-law c re omf m the com missionerses,'th was not on that subject — that Mr. Lewis . ned in give Mr. Twistleton a seat in the Poor-law Commission — that Sir J. Graham had no conf erence acquaint e d with it until the subject was mentioned Parliament, and be had never seen the letter written by Sir J. Graham till the publication of Mr. Day's pamphlet. Now, continued the Hon. Member, here (pointing to-the printed (stridence) was convincing proof that Day had been improperly deprived of his situation, and he would ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he could not have re warded Mr. Twistleton without depriving Day of his daily bread. On the 26th of April, 1844, when he (Mr. Ferrand) made the charge at Leeds, the Right Hon. Baronet denied it, and read a letter from Mr. Day, saying it was untrue. The Hon. Member quoted Mr. Day's letter, and Sir James Graham's in reply. Poor Day, he had no hesitation in saying, was sacrificed for the advantage of Colonel Wade, and a singular cir cumstance which he would mention accompanied that appointment. It was rot long afterwards when another gentleman dropped down dead as he was visiting an union workhouse. With regard to the alleged reduction of the number of Poor-law Commissioners, he (Mr. Ferrand) thought no such reduction was contemplated, for immedi ately after Mr. Mott's resignation, Mr. Clements suc ceeded to the appointment. Now, one more extract from the evidence, and he had done, and he should ground his appeal on the answer to the following ques tion. Mr. Christie asked Mr. Lewis chat he supposed to be the reason why Mr. Mott was called upon to re sign? What did they think was the reply? Air. Lewis replied that he hoped the Committee would excuse him from answering the question. Would the Secretary for the Home Department now answer it. He (Mr. Fer rand) would tell them the reason. A false report had been drawn up against him, and he repeated they dare not tell what their reasons were. Mott durst not be kept any longer. In conclusion he would say that if they placed themselves in a witness box, and subjected themselves to an examination and told the truth, the whole truth, and no thing but the truth he should leave such a scrutiny with his honour unstained—they should be involved in in ferny and disgrace. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for a committee of inquiry. Sir J. GRAHAM—Sir, I came down to this House prepared to agree to the motion put upon the books of the House by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, after some deliberation, embracing so large a question of public policy, and mixed up with a great deal of per sonal accusation against myself, involving nothing less than a high crime and misdemeanour. I had re solved, if the motion put on the paper had been gone into in the manner intended, to go separately into that part of the case which affected me personally, and not to enter into the general policy involved in this transaction. The Hon. Member has not, however, fol lowed out his intention; he has departed from the terms of his motion, and has given up the question of general policy to make a personal attack on me. Mr. Speaker, I thought, that with my retirement from the service of her Majesty, with my return into a private station, pursuing the strictest silence, and giving offence to no one, I should Lave been spared the bitter hostility which the Hon. Member for Knaresborough chooses to indulge, but I have been disappointed. The circumstances in which the Hon. Member found himself placed prevented him from adopting a contrary course ; but rhope when the Hon. Member makes accusations of high crimes and misdemeanours, the House will receive them with some caution, and allowance. I shall now proceed to speak f the accusations which he has made against me, and I shall shortly and temperately, but deliberately and firmly, touch upon each of the topics which he has brought under your consideration, and principally one with which the House could not but be familiar—what the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury terms the "celebrated Mott case." The first time that came before the attention of the public was in the year 1843. Now let me call your attention to the substance of that charge. It is this,—that one or more of the Poor-law Commissioners conspired to obtain a false report, to injure the character of the Hen. Member for Knaresborough in the discharge of his duties. In 1842 the accusation had not assumed that substantiative form or shape. The Hon. Member then confined himself to denying the report of Mr. Mott and Sir J. Walsham. On the matter coming before the House the Hon. Gen tleman was pressed by the Hon. and Gallant Member for Marylebone to institute an inquiry into the charges which he then made, but though repeatedly urged to take this course he declined to do so.— (Hear.) Entertaining that notion, the Gallant Admiral himself moved the appointment of a committee of inquiry, and the first allegation of the Hon. Gentleman is, that that Committee was a " packed one." Now, will the House allow me to read the names of the Members who com posed that Committee? There was first, Sir C. Napier, who moved its appointment; then the name of the Ho nourable Gentleman himself (Mr. Ferrand), who was a member of that Committee who at tended its meetings, and who had ample op portunities of examining any witnesses whom he might have thought fit to call and of cross examining any of the witnesses called by others to what testimony ho might object; next there was Dr. Nichol, Mr. Childers, Mr. Packington, Mr. Trollope, Colonel Wood, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. W. Williams, Mr. Aldam, Mr. Grimsditch, Captain Pechell, Mr. B. Clive, Mr. Colville, and Mr. Thomas Duneombe. Those are the Members who constituted the Committee which has been designated by the Hon. Member as a " packed Committee." Allow me, however, just shortly to read to the House the report of the Committee so consti tu'ed—a report which the Hon. Member has designated as a false report —as "trumped up and false." The specific charge which the lion. Member had made was—first, that the report of Mr. Mutt was false; and, secondly, th.tt the report of Sir John Walsham was false. Now, the report of that Committee says, "that the report of Mr. Mott was borne out in all its most im portant allegations by the evidence called before the Committee for the purpose of impugning it." So much with regard to Mr. Mott's report. With regard to Sir John Walshatn's report, the report says "that no attempt has been made to impugn the general accuracy, with one or two trifling exceptions, of any of the details of Sir John Walsham's report"—(Cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—No, no; I did not use the words you state. Sir J. GRAHAM —I took it down " trumped up report;" but, if the Hon. Gentleman retracts the ex pression, I :Jr. FERRAND—No, no; I used the term "trumped up report." a h i e ly r , epo b r e t was false, or not, is not material. Committee, said that the Committee was a "packed Sir J. GRAHAM—Whether rt, in his esti mation,and, certainly, I may infer that the report, It was made in the first charge' of the Hon. Member. he sa C id ert t that the report of 1842, and the charge was to the effect t was false. But, Sir, I have said Gentleman, who that Committee was false; and the Hon. ; deposed to that this was was himself a Member of that Committee, q „ use the fact, that its report was false; and it is which the . the Hon. to determine whether the definition of rid whether the ings, is to be received as the correct one; .ammittee consti - House will not give some confidence to a Co_ H n. Gentleman tuted as this one was, especially as the e 'Messes, and Gentleman has given under the influeneweh excited feel was one of its members, and examined ws r any accuse had every opportunity of bringing forward f a il ,d to do tion in the presence of Mr. Mutt, but he has to -night, 1844. In 1844, as he has reminded the House ho de at a public meeting at Leeds, in a speech which than he had livered, he thought fit to go ono step further so. So the matter stood from the year 1842 till the year that I, Mr. was a false report, and proceeded to allegehad Lewis, and the Poor-law Commissioners the conspi r edp done in 1842, as he stated that the report "that Mr. Mott together to obtain a false report, for crashing him." I thought it my dety, i la , e to ask his of the Hon. Member, he being in his P if i e t et e i ng not only attention to an accusation so directly.a purity of the my personal honour, but the unstained ur bold office which I then had the honour 0 _ f State. as one of her Majesty's Secretarikeed the lion. I denied that accusation.. I us and I offered him Member to proceed with his charge, w . s ed h to adhere every opportunity of doing so if he lion t . Member, the thpe presence to the charge he had made; and the r e, and demurred himself to the jurisdiction of the H ous ti sting any such to this as the fair tribunal for inves . g t another —he a gaMS. charge, preferred by one Mem b e r a withdrew fro the refused to sustain his charge, an e wrounds; bull say House. It is now renewed, on othe-,e and m alignant — House would recollect, deliberately °fused to submit that that accusation was unfoundeu tad decide in my (Cheers) —and common candour " na nny referred to favour. The Hon. Member b" g : b e ventured, in a other circumstances; but in July las t d previously adopted, more substantive form than he Ti me s no r apper, con I think were addressed to the b eh e b had more than twining in writing the charges w i xr. Lewis, acting once orally repeated tookh. the opinion of coun by advice, at "caletters i n question were not sel whether the e Member, if I mistake not, on to reiterate the charge. He publihsted two letters, which indictable. The Hen. g s aid that he wrote those letters from a former when he said he had that eager desire, he the test ; an . as his intention, when called upon, to stated that it d w We ed himself as the author of those letters, w a e n e d k s that elapsed lu r. Lewis s e any . have acknowle. g was - at once made to him by an eager edveeseidriee-tobring the points at issue directly to An application know f he was the author of those Mr. Lewis ; to hat send t :o y ul o ci rks th h e ire, H s o p u e s c e inu t y hi a n n k d letters ; but if orally he direct answer was to it had an opportunity of comingg give e o question ;- and when that question was put to ask that ber in - Yorkshire, he declined to i to the Hon. Mer l he was not until an London, and that h .application was to 102 that he said be was the author made personally did not do thatuntil ' it was well known informedcompelled thetaw of them. But he a r had consented that the Times newsP pe Hon, to produce the snow that the - letters, and therefore thertetuthrnreede, to on. Member wrote them, that he consentedh acknowledge that they ori ginatedany answer until (p eers.) So much for with him,— his eager ness to bring this mailer to a t est. Then Mr. Lewi s , in a court of law, proceeded to move for a rule, calling upon the Hon. Member to show cause why a criminal information should filed not be against him. The Hon. Member combatted the making of that rule absolute to the utmost possible extent. It was resisted to the ut most, but after full arguments, the Court decided that the rule should be made absolute. And here, en pas sant, I would observe, that the affidavit on which he (Mr. Ferrand) materially relied was one by Mr. Bar ker, and used in the Queen's Bench, on'the rule nisi, when there was no means of making any answer to it,. However, that affidavit was before the Court, and nothing but my respect for the even flow of justice, and that I should be criminal in the highest degree if I interfered with the even current of that justice restrains me from reading to the Rouse the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England, speaking on behalf of the full Court when he decided that the rule should be made absolute.' —(Loud cheers.) I will not read that judgment, but I will state to the House that I have filed an affidavit— that I have stated on oath on an affidavit, which is on the files of the Court, and which is open to he traversed or contradicted in any way, my most positive solemn denial that I was a party to any conspiracy whatever for the purpose of crushing the Hon. Member.—(Loud cheers.) But, Sir, the Hon. Member says that the real nature of the transactions between me and Mr. Lewis will never be known. (Hear, hear.) I almost fear to make use of the- expression he adopted; but if he wishes for an appeal to a jury before the day of judgment—before the verdict is given —an opportunity will be given to the Hon. Member of showing, in the usual manner, what passed between me and Mr. Lewis. I am ready to appear as a witness in any court—(Loud cheering)—and to state every per sonal transaction, so far as lam concerned. I court an inquiry—l am ready to appear, and, having made that statement, and considering that the matter is still before a court of law, and that Mr. Lewis entered into security three or four days before - the session to proceed; and that it will, consequently, go before a jury in the course of the next six weeks, and in which it is possible I may be examined as a wit ness, I am sure the House would consider it most unbe coming in me to interfere in any way with the course of justice.—(Cheers.) I hope I have satisfied the House that with respect to the transactions with Mr. Mott, I am not prepared in the least degree to shrink, but to give the fullest information that may be re quired at the proper time and before the proper tribunal.—(Cheers, and " Hear, hear.") The Hoe. Member said, in referring to a letter of Mr. Lewis, "that as to Mr. Lewis—what has become of him ?" I say Mr. Le'vvis has taken the proper steps to vindicate his honour—the step that the lion. Gentleman most desires. The lion. Gentleman has" appealed to Cmsar, and to Czesar ho shall go ; and it will be for a court of law to decide whether Mr. Lewis has departed from the duty of a faithful servant of the Crown, and whether the accusation preferred by the Hon. Gentleman is " false and calumnious," as the House has declared it to be. I shall only allude inci dentally to the ease of Mr. Jenkin Jones, who pleaded gulity to having, I think, bartered for some corrupt consideration. The Hon. Member has not hesitated to introduce a passage from the evidence of the Andover Committee, in which her Majesty's present Attorney- General does appear to have expressed an opinion with respect to me, remarkable both for its brevity and severity. But that opinion appears to have been given in an excitable moment, by a counsel in his zeal for his employer, and, therefore, I do not wish to pro nounce any opinion upon it except as regarding it es arising from the impetuous temper of.the Hon. Gentle. man at the moment.—(Hear, hear.) But lam bound to tell the truth, that as far as I am concerned, I did not advise the law officers of the Crown. My late lamented Learned Friend, Sir William Follett, was at that time Attorney-General, and my Hon. and Learned Friend be low me (Sir F. Thesiger), Solicitor-General. Mr. Jen kin Jones having pleaded guilty, I, regardless of all application from whatever quarter, was resolved that he should be brought up for judgment, and he was sen tenced to a year's imprisonment, and I certainly thought that I should have given to her Majesty the most un sound advice if I had advised that a person who had pleaded guilty under such circumstances, who, being a servant of the Crown, had sold an office—l think I should have neglected my duty to the Crown, if I had asked her Majesty to remit the sentence until a very considerable portion of it had expired.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I certainly thought that such a case deserved punishment, and I did not advise her Majesty to remit the punishment until he had been im prisoned eight months. I wish shortly to refer to a question put to me at the close of last session, with refe rence to the crushing of bones in the Andover union. The question was first put by the Hon. Member for Fins bury (Mr. Wakley), and I directed inquiry immediately to be instituted, and the person employed was Mr. Parker, who happened to be at that time an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner. I think lam accurate when I state that an interview took place between me, Mr. Parker, and Sir Edmund Head, one of the Poor-law Commissioners, on the very day following the question, or the day after that ; at all events, it would have been impossible for me to have presented Mr. Parker's report until the last day of the session, The accusation is that I wished to suppress the report. The suppression of that report was impossible, because it was made to the Commis sioners, and became part of the records of a public office, and I do not hesitate to say that I did think, and I do think, that the presentation of that report on the last day of the session, when no expla nation could be given of mitigating circumstances, was injudicious ; the report should have lain on the table until the ensuing session, in order to give the verbal explanation which I did on the last day of the session. A note was taken of that explanatien, which was subsequently used in this House—(Hear, hear) — and used seven or eight months after ;_ the recollec tion of the exact words may have passed away ; but I think some expressions are inserted in that statement which I did not use. The House will see the disadvan tages under which I labour, in not having made a memorandum. Then, with respect to the Andover in quiry, I remained a fortnight in town, and might have been summoned at any time to give any explanation ; it was not for me to offer myself. With respect to Mr. Clement, the:Assistant Poor-law Commissioners were re duced from ten to nine, at the wish of the Commis sioners ; and although I advised with them on the sub ject, I never availed myself of the office which I held to patronise or appoint any particular individual. With regard to Mr. Clements, that matter was fully investigated by the House, and the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) took a part in the discussion, and the House decided that there was nothing improper in the conduct of that gentleman. The Hon. Gentleman was then fortunate enough to find six members who held the same opinion as himself, a position which I do not think he will be fortunate enough to maintain this night, for I do not consider that he will find a single member to second his motion. It now only remains that I should notice the case of Mr. Day. Towards the end of the year 1845, the Commissioners appointed to inquire, into the Poor-law made their report. It will be acknowledged, that among the circumstances which led to the disturbances in Wales the Poor-law was among the most prominent of them. I have no hesi tation in say, that there was,. on the part of the Poor-law Commission a desire that some change should be - effected in the administration of the law as it affected Scotland. At my earnest request Mr. Twiselton relinquished a most advantageous situation as Assistant Poor-law Com missioner for the Metropolitan District, I having pro. mised that as soon as there shonld be an opening in the commission, that his claims should be recollected—claims which were founded upon very pre-eminont services, rendered under very critical and difficult circumstances. To-night, for tho first time, have I heard that corrupt proceedings have been imputed to us. I never heard that imputation before this moment—l only know that under the most trying, the most difficult, circumstances, ho discharged his duty with great ability, and with exemplary fidelity.—(Hear.) He was no political friend of mine—ho was appointed by the Noble Lord oppo site, and it was only my conviction from what I had seen of his ability and fidelity in the execution of diffi cult duties, that he was trustworthy, and that it would be for the public service which led me to wish that he would go to Scotland. He held, as I have stated, a most advantageous situation—he relinquished it on my solemn and positive assurance that his services should not be overlooked. When I saw a change was about to occur, I did ask the Poor-law Commissioners to re member Mr. Twiselton. The Poor-law Commissioners, using the powers vested in them, which they had a per fect right to do, and having the merits of the late Col. Wade strongly placed before them, removed Mr. Day, and appointed Col. Wade. This is simply the case of Mr. Day; and now, in conclusion, I should say that. I hope anti believe that I have not been betrayed into any angry expressions, and that I have not descended to the use of intemperate language.—(Hear, hear.) The matter can not rest where it now standa.—(Hear, hear.) An appeal has been made to the right tribunal. There, and there only, am I about to enter into a full explanation; and there I am ready to appear, and give upon oath a full explanation, which my sense of duty compels me to defer.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Dr. BOWRING—Since he had been appealed to by the Right Honourable Baronet, he would just state what he knew of the matter with reference to the dismissal of Mr. Mott. In the year 1841 he called the attention of the House to the extreme sufferings occasioned to the poor, by the operation of the Poor-law, in the borough which he had the honour to represent. He made a certain statement, and the Right Hon. Baronet replied that the matter should undergo investigation. In accordance with that promise Mr. Mott was sent down, but he did not conduct that inquiry in a way that was either satis factory to himself, or to his constituents. They con sidered that be did not take that trouble which he ought, that he did not examine the parties which he ought. Representations were made to the Commissioners that the investigation was conducted in a way ,which was most unsatisfactory. He, himself, wrote a very strong representation to the Secretary of the Commissioners, in which he told him that nothing could be more likely to throw discredit on the Commissioner, than the mode in which that inquiry was made. He (Dr. Bowring) admitted that at that time he was a very warm friend of the Commissioner.—(Hear, hear.) 01 Mr. Mott he did not hear for a long time, not until the question of his dismissal came before the House, and then he interpreted it as a consequence of the complaints which had been made, and to the dissatisfaction which had existed from his conduct in that affair. That opi nion was confirmed when an appeal was made to him, as being cognisant of the reasons which led to his dis missal.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said that be hoped the House would permit him, since he had been referred to by both the Honourable Members, to touch for a few moments upon the great Mott case.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He had not the advantage of having a previous con ference with the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—his resolution was shown to him as he entered the House, and he was then told that it was his intention to with draw a portion of it—a resolution which, in Its opinion, was discreet. The llouse should recollect the circum stances which had given rise to the discussion, and the subject with which it was connected. It referred to the law of Elizabeth, which was once considered supreme, but which had been subject to change. A great revolu tion in their own time had been achieved regarding that law; it was still subject to change, but at all levents it was open to public and national criticism,andlitto aicaaly that the modifica tion.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossiblewhich public opinion subject was one of th ose _ upon should be viewed charitably, nor . should the expressions of public men be viewe d in a captious spirit. The Poor- T 1 he Right Hon. Baronet, law.was a question o f charity. was an influential country and ho e d b : c ci a d m ed e a Minister of the Crown , opinions upon this very question, frendmeedssounrenwan ntisonina.l an d economical principles. When t troduced, he suppo rted it with airldlhiinsnooliclayi at a statesman, but as a manof a conviction, and he was determined that the law should be carried out whe n he came into office ; in all that he saw nothing but the effects of honest atnimdes,inrceemreemcobner viction. But they s hould, at the m that there were two opinions, and if the representative man not' brought into that House of one of those was a by a great party,but by the sympathies of his neigh bours, such as was the case with his Hon. Friend, whom every body knew to be a man of earnest and honest intentions, and who expressed out of that House the same , opinions as those to which he had given utterance in it the expression of the opinions of such a man should be received with indulgence. He did not agree with his friend in many of his views. He saw before him two sincere individuals. The one was the Secretary so attacked, and the other was the Honourable Member _about to be so punished, the representative of public opinion —one was a powerful Minister, the other was an isolated individual who had no party to support him, whose only solace was the conviction that he had performed his duty, and that public sympathy was awakened in his behalf The Right Hon. Gentleman's chief reason for not answering the charge was, that he was abo u t t o appear before a tribunal where the matter would undergo a full investigation. He entirely agreed with him in the pro • priety of the course whi2h be had adopted. But he would ask the House where the question bad orizinatecl —was it, ho would ask, before the Lord Chief Justice of England ? The resolution was obta , ned by the most powerful Minister that the country had ever seen for a century, and who had a Mace donian 'phalanx, ready to vote with him when ho should bow his head. The language of that resolution was such as to be by no means honourable to that House—such language should be reserved for high criminals. Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hon. AL:robe'. for Shrewsbury was one of that very Macedonian phalanx which he had stigmatised. The question in dispute wai a very simple one—it was, whe ther a certain serious charge implicating the character and integrity of the Minister was true or otherwise. The House had resolved, nemine coNtradcecinic, that it was a false and calumnious imputation. The 11, , ii. Member for Shrewsbury had been the close and intimate friend of that powerful Minister to whom he alluded, until he saw the prospect of danger, which, when he descried, he turned and left him to his fate.—(flear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said a great deal had been ob served about gentlemen of one idea, and the Hon. Mem ber for Shrewsbury had been rated on that account. Now, he thought that the charge was not all on the one. side. He found there were other Hon. Members in that House of one idea. The late Secretary of State had but one idea, and he thought that none were right bnt those: which emanated from himself. lie (Mr. Newdegate) hoped the Hon. Member for Knaresborough would not press his motion to a division, as a decision on it might, interfere with the proceedings that were going forward elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL remarked that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough had said that he had left out one part of his motion. He (Lord John Russell) was of opinion that if the other moiety had also been left out, it would have been equally judicious.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member in the motion which he has made, takes recognizance of various questions which have been already considered and decided. With respect to the charges made against the Right Hon. Baronet, the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, he quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Bath, that the question had been already disposed of, and had not been sustained, for the House had disposed of the ques tion. The question was now pending in a court of law, and he thought, under such circumstances. it should not have been introduced again. The House had already done its part, and the subject was now about to undergo judicial investigation. Regarding Mr. Clements the House bad already come to a decision on the question,' while now the lion. Member brought forward various cases respecting the Andover Union in order to throw blame on the Poor-law Commissioners. On this ques tion the Hon. Member had quoted the authority of Mr. Coode, with the object of impugning the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, and evidence had been re ferred to in support of the misconduct of the latter gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) If the allegations ad vanced by the lion. Member were true, he (Lord John Russell) did not know how the Hon. Member the Under- Secretary of State could hava rated in the manner de scribed, and still hold his seat in the House.—(Hear, !ean) - with regard to the Poor-law Commissioners, the question they — had before them to-night to consider was, whether the Hon. Member for Knaresborough had acted wisely in the course ho had taken—whether the Right Honourable Baronet having acted in the matter referred to, to the best of his ability and belief, should now be charged in the manner which had been done; and whether the Hon. Member for Knaresborough was not operating on their forbearance too far in ad vancing charges of corrupt and improper conduct. Sir R. PEEL had no wish of taking a part in the present discussion, considering that the subject was now before a tribunal, where it would receive a more dispas sionate consideration than before that House. He should not have spoken had it not been for an observa tion made by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), who had stated that he believed that the House had done wrong to the Honourable Member for Knaresborough. He hoped that if the Honourable Member thought so, and if he believed that charge well founded that he would refer to the records of the House. These records would decide whether the Right llon. Baronet had used his power for the purpose of doing wrong to the Hon. Member for Knaresborotgh. The Hon. Member had not only preferred charges against the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Secretary o! the Home Department as involving his character as a Minister of the Crown, but he goes further, that was not the only party charged, he charged the lion. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg) with having, as a member of a Committee of the lletve, made a false report to that House in order to ttasist Sir James Graham in unseating Mr. Walter. This had been already noticed in that House; and Mr. Hogg had come forward, and expressed him self prepared to meet any charge that could be made against him. 11 Honourable Members would refer to the records of the proceedings of the House, they would find this to be the case ; and they should, therefor:, proceed in the present matter with great circum spection. When the discussion was first raised on thi, question he advised delay ; he was anxious to do this in order to test the accuracy of the charges, whether they were well or ill founded. They were again re peated, and he again advised delay, in order that full opportunity might be given for inquiry. The charge! was this—the Secretary of State had violated the oaths of his office and trusts reposed in him, and that the fullest investigation should therefore take place. It then became his duty, after the Hon. Member had de clined to retract or to substantiate his charge, to move' the resolution which was carried by the House. So far from this resolution having been passed in consequence. of any power held by him in virtue of any office with, which he was invested, he believed that no resolution ever passed that House which had been carried with more universal consent than was that resolution. So far from carrying with them any vindictive feeling, be was sure that there was not one Member of that House who did not wish to be relieved from the responsibility im posed upon him. These were the circumstances under which he had been compelled to suggest the resolutions which had passed the House, and if the Hon. Gentleman did intend to convey a censure against him for using any power which he possessed to his prejudice, he hoped— he was sure—that the feeling of the House would be, that in this matter he was quite blameless. Mr. CHRISTIE said that he was anxious that the debate should not close without his making one or two observations upon the matter which had been brought before the House. But he would assure the House, without any affectation, that if the Right Hon. Baronet had not alluded to the subject in the way he did, he (Mr. Christie) would not on that evening have asked the indulgence of the House. ()a the production of the memorandum of conversation which was held with Mr. Parker, that Right Hon. Baronet seemed to complain that if he (Mr. Christie) had thought at one time as he now did think, he should at that period have said what it was that evening his intention to say. The Right lion. Bart. had said that the charge made against him was that he had wished to suppress the report in the sense of destroying it. He (Mr. Christie) never thought of making that charge. He might inform the Hon. Baronet that for the production of that document he (Mr. Christie) was alone responsible. It was placed in his hands by Mr. Parker, with a variety of other docu ments relating to his case, and he was allowed to exer cise his personal discretion in the production of them, without consulting that gentleman, and he would take that opportunity of saying that he (Mr. Parker) was not in any way responsible for the production of that paper. The Right Hon. Baronet spoke of Mr. Parker as having made a written memorandum of that conver sation, in violation of an implied pledge. With regard to the making of that memorandum, he had the strongest conviction upon his own mind that Mr. Parker was led to make that memorandum from a feeling of insecurity and want of confidence in his superiors. The Right Hon. Baronet had taken exceptions to some of Mr. Coode's statements, as leading to the conclusion that it others of the subordinates, in other departments, were to act in a similar way, the measures of such public de partments would be at an end. There was, he was sorry to say, a general feeling among the subordinates of the Poor-law Commissioners of a want of respect and con fidence in their superiors in that department. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough had stated that Mr. Coode was dismissed by the Poor-law Commissioners in conse quence of the evidence he had given before the Com mittee. Mr. FERRAND—No, for writing the letter. Mr. CHRISTIE—Now it was right that the House should know that Mr. Coode had applied before the Poor law Commissioners were aware that he had written that letter.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had endeavoured to defend the Poor-law Commissioners in their conduct to Mr. Day. He was not anxious to take the House into the subject, of Mr. Dey, or of the resignation of Mr. Day • but he must say that after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the Committee which had been appointed to examine into the circumstances, and which had been presided over by the lion. Member for Droitwich (a friend to the l'oor-law Commissioners), that Committee had come to the conclusion, without a division, that after the fullest and most patient investigation, the Poor-law Commissioners had failed to justify their calling upon Mr. Day to resign. The name of Mr. Jenkin Jones had been called up. No one could blame the Right lion. Baronet for the manner in which he had spoken of Jenkin Jones. The Right Hon. Baronet bad stated that Jenkin Jones had bar .tered office for a base consideration, but let them look at the circumstances under which Jenkin Jones had pleaded guilty, and let them also bear in mind this im portant fact, that at the time of his being sentenced year's imprisonment he held the office of actuary toan insurance company. While holding that office he had invited a committee of the directors as to go into th e w h o l e w of the case, and the House aware that these directors were responsible to a large body of proprietors, who looked very sharply into their proceedings. Well, after the fullest investigatio, the Committee came to the determination of r k i keeping his office of actuary open till his release from in his office, and he cently he received a I They then reinstated him p st' s l o l n o . ecupied it, and only very re cently handsome mark of their ap probation, accompanied by a valuable present. The uld be er half that he t heard there "liear.) ind his would would not :onunit te r in Woo: be 0001 how" La i n fro; only "" bedhaven t anY 13— i ly bec ome ight Kw" ;coed to ' bury as is uk• d a ppow dal he t r ?d tha t roceed ing e that 1 1 , (3 w u A s s t he idering ere iargee / l o p. Righ the re' ght, iear, 1 101 7 0 to io sSitli ns 00 0 - on g r- , be on, an mrl m a t he that •er ha d f bee° a Member a ,ea Pbe bead o t . , ee- tbe r efused 10 nage t th ht oug so t "„ t ber s 100 0 echo yerl, the 0° „go uld ose °°,,. invent „ °u jd t) ue nts •9; L i db°P e t" 01° diens t able ti, resP e v,,beti that me ,soo4 le. th at 0 3 G ` lif f 'n eri °v full inole• Hoe.' titis , . Lent. YID'O sbUrj rA t g lac w ii 9 10 4 as bo subi ec the yet, as T h i:Co el - LISS different t ad gra% lt; %Toeld leo-1 -to stablishea, ' to2d that I.f ibe d,be if t made °°;.tid, sub st 101 t he and tht7 n -tbs ,factory i s 10 the) , °ug ss ibi of ei' of th .s eco , :ircualswilop as of the air More 101 .0 , t , but h ot t e ot iudeP e Acl' ,sons, b y he stated 1,„ ought r the gtA arbic iple e re rine, we ir 5 , lay u° o f th at t 4 .t.tarit ~ght tu. t bo. st, b e " 4. 3fero ye n, n. . ht 0% 11 1 , 1 1 ' 1 ' 0 1 'in the 11 3 .4 is proet. tes ti3ri, p e w n or jade t % r il e ; e ir . coin, a 3 that oto , Soyo d i by (A ro jign e 0 I d he Co.- C e s e the chs rg tl )f t h or .r, 11a f g ° qtlLO 511 j been )lisheP,a, h tlich h_3o,liie. tereellt'h; be d louse , F ri'', f su ch ° o deO" i n iePe t of ) 0 co t ~ntio, ate tea b ltUe 6 _ O3 1t , h coo' With f f ii irs a - ;.office e yiclen e wer e , fl bhc,oo, tie I _tlite3lteo ,he i b_ hos tit ea j e 6uu tion estiga h be b a o j tb ldersto ,b, boil' to tie 5 0 ,15 0 ,1 01/ 141t ate P C/ II an • t wt to themadefloAl t he t io , or „licit to erurp''„,d ling "otl. trict th e a d s est r i e j Laet t ; P tt I bO f o pv Lis c ,„ 11 OOP t It 4; „If hir ° oo el 3 ,ould e a to in 'ate •icy' )P° l v oi n t rre a „eh that `"- _; P / ,dne(oo ola t co , it 'enter al to g ' talerY t e 12 1 ,,, ' EC l3fj E ST. 0 00' .ward tp rtA in to CC L Yg he' e b e i t „ v t d to :ll P og r'ilati° tro n co e f L ice ge n o, fore " ts . u . t or) - this 1 •o f sore° 'felt , t he to he d ,vhts ea th, li t rth 3t t iloo% a d nee b e • stifY If e d l' f t3 l cause• s t ° t hat r oe oh b e • 0 00 te r tha t to ente for a law, - Hon. Gentleman had made one statement in January and another in July. It would appear that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough had made this statement with the knowledge that it was merely a gidiatypoterfairti The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made tria . *47.ll---,_„ vation in compliance with the conviction of "filit(iilvEtl , meat. He was not going to say whether this i ei; e igli ft e unwise proceeding, but ha simply wished , gegiitleeirether •.• feelings of the House respecting the conduc ofilleteur missioners. - Sir C. NAPIER said, that it appeare lhat—tte reports on which the mover relied were tiqbeirbe Keighley Union, and he thought that in Me! r4o.rt which was recommended to the House, that this report should be received, especially as the opinions of those Commissioners was not to be relied upon. He thought that the report made from the Keighley Union ought not to be relied upon. The Hon. Gentleman had stated, that this was a packed Committee, but ender the ele ct:instances, he thought that no notice whatever should be taken of the matter. —(Laughter.) Mr, 'VILLIERS begged to correct the representation of the lion. Member for Knareshorough. Ho would not say a word about Mr. Lewis, for although it was com prised in facts that had been reported, there was nothing to shut them out from .the conclusions at which they had arried. Mr. VILLIERS thought that the Hon. Member had arrived at conclusions long before the results were ob tained, and that if they were to bo carried out that the lion. Member for Knaresborough would be able to sub stantiate his accusations. He was not prepared to deny that there was some room for the ellegation which had been made, but still there was reason for the allowance of the time which had been asked for to night. He did not l‘now whether this allegation of Mr. Mott was true or not, but this he knew, that Mr. Mutt had received a contribution of 8001. a.year, and he simply wished to know how the engagements were to be satisfied ? Mr. FERRAND was riot particular as to the words which had been used, nor did he require all the reports for which he had asked. His only desire was to give sa tisfaction to the public ; and in the case of Mr. Lewis it mattered little whether the question was to be given in favour of Mr. Lewis or Mr. Jones. All he desired was, that the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners should be fully investigated, and that it should be ascertained how far the Poor-law Commissioners had acted in accordance with the Act of Parliament. It mattered little whether Lewis or Jones was the acting persons. He freely acknowledged that he was the author of the letters which had been so much alluded to in the course of the discussion. He had never imputed improper motives to Mr. Christopher, but what he did say was, that Mr. Christopher went into the country incognito to perform certain duties for individual members of the Government. Sir F. THESIGER said the lion. Gentleman was mistaken if he fancied any delay would take place in the legal proceedings that were pending against him; and if the Hon. Gentleman would only plead speedily the case might be put down for trial at once. The motion was then withdrawn. PUNISHMENTS IN THE NAVY. _ Mr. HUME did not know whether there would be any objection to a motion ho was about to make for a return of the punishments which had taken place in the nary under Captain Stopford. He did not make the motion with any view of trying Captain Stopford again, but it was really important that they should have some individual case as data to go upon, in settling or testing the degree of severity practised in the navy. The returns last year showed that the 'average number of lashes given in one case was 48, while the lowest was three. The greatest portion of the punishments were inflicted for drunkenness, and it was important to ascertain how far the extent of punish ment exceeded the law. On the motion being put, Captain WARD said, he must concur fully in the ob servations of his Honourable Friend, but nothing could be more unjust than to publish all the statements that had influenced the Lords of the Admiralty in their decision, without their being anything put forward in exculpation of the charges that had been preferred against Captain Stopford. Ho trusted that, under these circumstances, his lion. Friend would not press the motion. Sir C. NAPIER said, it should be recollected that there had been a half dozen different codes, for the regulation of the navy. He considered that the Hon. Member was deceiving the House when he stated that the navy was ruled by the laws of George the First or George the Second, he did not know which. It was, therefore, very unjust of the Hon. Gentleman to make the observations which he had done. They were now under new and different instructions. Captain Stopford had been acquitted upon evidence which those who tried him must have considered sufficient, and ho thought the best course would have been to move for the minutes of that evidence. Mr. WILLIAMS said he was quite ready to give his support to the present Board of Admiralty. And he was of opinion, that when:men were competent to com mand, that there would not exist any necessity for flogging; and it was only when men were incompetent to govern that recoure was had to corporal punishment. Besides, there was a decrease in the number of punish ments of late years. Between the years 1844 and 1845 there had been a considerable diminution; and looking ing back a few years he found that they were double the number of the year:, year. This was owing to no change in the opinions of the officers, but to public opinion being brought to bear upon the subject. Ire believed the House would be doing a great injury in bringing all the evidence in this matter before the House at present.—(Hear. hear.) Why was there so great a difference in the case of the army and navy? The present number of lashes allowed to be given to a sailor was 48. If Captain Stopford bad given that number, and no more, he would of curse be acquitted by:the court-martial. Captain HARRIS said, that in all the cases where a reduction of the amount of punishment had been made, it had been done by, and with the advice of, the officers in command. Lord INGESTRIE thought 'it was all very well for the Hon Member to come down and lecture the House upon the question of corporal punishments. He would like to see the Hon. Member in command of a vc ssel with a boisterous or mutinous crew, and having no means of punishment at his command. He (Lord Ingestrie) had commanded several of her Majesty's vessels, arid he could speak for himself, and, in doing so, he thought that he was expressing the feeling gene rally entertained by naval officers, that there was no part of their duty more painful than that of inflicting punishment upon the seamen. - It was necessary, how ever, for the safety of the ship, that the crew should be amenable to prompt and energetic punishment. He would recommend to the Hon. Member to take a cruise for eighteen months or a couple of years, in one of her Majesty's vessels, with an insubordinate crew, in stress of weather or in the face of an enemy, without the means of punishment, the Hon. Member would then soon alter his opinions upon the subject. Mr. HUME said that all he wanted was a return of the number of men on board the ship, and the amount of punishment inflicted upon them. As it appeared-, how ever, to be the desire of the Hon. Gentleman below him that the motion should be postponed, be had no objection for the present to acquiesce in their desire. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. NAVIGATION LAWS. Mr. lIUME moved for a copy of all memorials and representations from Canada respecting the differential duties on goods imported into the colonies, and respect ing the operation and effect of the British Navigation Laws on their commerce since 1845.—Ordered. PROVISION DEPOTS IN IRELAND. Mr. HAMILTON moved for a return of the several places in Ireland where the depots of provisions have been established, the date when such depot was opened, and the average price at which each description of pro visions have been sold during the month.—Ordered. BREWING FROM SUGAR BILL. This Bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be read a third time on Friday next. BUCKWHEAT, &c., IMPORTATION BILL. This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Friday. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve. ~' :, COURT CIRCULAR. WINDSOR, 'Nunn,Av.—The Queen walked this morning on the Eastern Terrace and Slopes, accompanied by their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal. Their Royal Highnesses Prince Alfred and the Princess Alice took their usual walking and pony exercise to-day. His Royal Highness Prince Albert hunted with his har riers this morning. His Royal Highness was attended by Lord Alfred Paget, Captain the lon. Robert Boyle, Mr. Ansor, and Colonel Seymour. Earl Fortescue and the Earl of Aberdeen left the Castle to-day. The royal dinner party at the Castle this evening, wit include her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, Count Alexander Meusdorff, the Lady in Waiting on the Duchess of Kent, the Baroness de Speth, Lady Emily Seymour, and Sir Robert and Lady Gardiner. The band of the Ist Life Guards attended during dinner. Her Majesty's private band afterwards attended in the Castle. CompanY, p Re A ge d n e t v s u c ta a t n io a n l o ß f a C il ro wa w y n tenants oppogidstitnogthoef psriorjecretthedr. ' Greenough. George Bishop, Jardine, Laurie, Messrs. Laurie, , George, Daniceil,R. LJones,GWeo.rforie I er . er aps h ra d u g a Ini ainterview V t i h ll iat sera M o • at P m . the Rev. Dr. Spry, ` w oods and Forests yesterday, their office in Whitehal y l s place. Mr. Grenfell had an interview with the Earl of Clarendon, yesterday, at the office of the Board Of Trade. A deputation from the City and Liberties of Westminster Sanatory Association, consisting of Dr. Aldig, chairman • the Rev. Mr. Martin, Mr. H. the Association, heaiamtii,roa.nr G. `Nilson, to the h'est- tu Randolph,inster Improvements; seer etry to isr e . .h \ a \r d i s a o n interview nand r with Viscount Morpeth, yesterday, at the office of the Woods and Forests. A deputation of the distillers of London, accompanied by Mr. John Wood, Ch a i rman o f t h e E xc i se , h a d an i n t erv i e w with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, at his official residence in Downing. street. Sir William Ileathcote had an interview with the Right lion. E. Strutt yesterday, at the office of the Commiasiouera of Railways, in Great George - street. Mr. Eastlake transacted business yesterday at the office of the Board of Trade. A deputation from Dean Forest, consisting of Messrs. Nicholson, Thomas, Trotter, and Braithwaite, had an inter view yesterday with Viscount Morpeth. Dispatches from the Governor of Van Diemen's Land were received yesterday at the Colonial-office. The Earl of Ellenbotough arrived at Farrance's Hotel, Upper Belgrave- street, yesteray, from his seat, Southettd, near Cheltenham. PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES.—In the small town of St. Helen's, the expense of the new waterworks was 3,0001., and the expense of obtaining the permission of Parliament to erect those werks was 1,0004 —Liverpool Times. •M2iMMIINI =~i~ -..›\ ,:\ 1 r