The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-09 00:00:00

BREAD.

Mr. G. BANKES Wished to put a question to the noble
lord at the head of the government. The noble lord had •
notice for tbia evening for the introduction of a bill further
to suspend the duties on the import of corn ; but it stood so
low on the paper, that it was hardly panicle that it could
coma on to-ntght. Ile wished, therefore, that the noble
lord would state for what period he intended to continue
the suspension of the duties. Ile also wished to ask the noble
lord another question, which had reference to a petition
which be held in his band, but which he had act been able
to present, for, owing to the press of private business, it wad
almost impossible to present petitions. That petition called
attention to tie sale of bread; and the question
he wished to put was, whether the government
had considered this subject. and whether they
proposed to review the laws which referred to the sale and
weight of bread ? He was informed by the petition that
during the great fluctuation in the price of bread in the last
ten months, the public bad suffered considerably from the
want of some control ever the price and weight of bread,
which had not followed the price of corn ; and the prayer of
the petition was, that if we were to have cheap corn, we
ought to have cheap bread also.
Lord J. RUSSELL did net think he would be able to
bring forward the bill for the suspension of the duties on the
import of corn to-night, and as it would be necessary that, in
point of form, it should be considered in a committee of the
whole house, be would bring it on on Thursday or
*rektor. The duties would be suspended till let March. He
thought the hon. gentleman was about to ask his questa,,;,n
with reference to an act which had once pulsed, b; which it
was not permitted that bread should be sold until a certain
time after it was baked, and which he (Lord J. Hosea) did
not think it fittirg should be enforced ; for, although there
was muck waste from the use of new bread, he did not think
it advisable to put a bill in motion, which -,:ould not be prac-
tically enforced. With regard to the e,oestion whether the
government proposed to adopt an assize of Dread, he must
reply that it was not their int ..ettion to do so. He would take
thou opportunity of as.'aing his hon. friend, the member
for Montrose, to postpone for one day his notice
of motion with regerd to the affairs of Portugal.
He as/reed to give Thursday for that purpose, but, at the
same time, he thought it more desirable that the question
should be brought on on Friday, for thnugh every possible
expedition had been used, the papers relating to the subject
would not be ready for the use of members till to-morrow.
Under these circumstances, he would ask his hon. friend to
bring on his motion on Friday instead of Thursday.
Mr. HUME said when the noble lord asked him yester-
day to postpone his motion, be thought that 48 hours was
time enough for members to go through the papers, and he
consented; but cow that he found they required three weeks
to prepare, he thought that was not time enough. He
would not, therefore, hesitate to agree to bring on his motion
on Friday.
Lord J. RUSSELL—In that case the adjourned debate on
the Prisons Bill will be taken on Thursday.
Lord G. BENTINCK said as there was no probability
that the debate would be over in one night—if the papers
took three weeks to prepare—
Lord J. RUSSELL—Three days.
Lord G. BENTINCK—It would be better to postpone
the motion till Monday ; Friday would be an inconvenient
day, for it was on that day that ker Majesty's ball took place.
(Laughter.)
Mr. HU ME would keep Friday for his motion.
Capt. PEC HELL begged to ask, es Thursday was disposed
of, what would become of the bill to amend the administra-
tion of the poor-law ?
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to bring that bill on as soon
as possible, but he could not now answer the question of the
hon. and gallant member.
THE CASE OF SIR E. WILMOT.

Mr. HOitgslTAiil;;g4 to ask a question of tke bon.
gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies. Last night
a remarkable statement was made, that two gentlemen hold-
ing high official situations had gone to the Colonial-office,
and made statements with regard to the governor of Van
Diemen's Land, on which he had been suspended from his
office. It was since discovered and admitted that those state-
ments were unfounded and calumnious. It was stated, on
the high authority of the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Graham), repreienting his late colleague, Mr. Gladstone,
that one of them held a high official appointment in Van
Diemen's Land ; and that the other, if not in office, was in a
position of high tenet. The question he wished to put was,
whether, as the statements were made net merely asrurnours
but in an authentic and semi official manner, the govern-
ment had ascertained the names of those gentlemen who had
been guilty of such gross conduct; and, secondly, if they
had, if it was intended to continue them in the public service ?
Mr. HAWES could only state what he said last night,
that there was in the Colonial-office no official record of any
statements against Sir E. Wilmot, and it was not in his
power to give the names. He had no means of obtaining
any information on the subject, for, as there were no official
records, he was in ignorance of the persons who made those

statements.
Mr. ESCOTT wished to ask the hon. gentleman whether
the Colonial-office was, in feet, in possession of the names of
the persons whe gave information to Mr. Gladstone, on
which he founded his secret despatch of the 20th of April,
1846. If the hon. gentleman gave the answer he expected' he
should then put a question to the right hon. baronet, the
member for Dorchester.
Mr. HAWES could only state what he had aid before—
that, the Colonial-office had no official record of the act in
question, or of the names of the parties ; and it was utterly
unable to give the hon. gentleman an answer, as, officially, he
was in entire ignorance of the names.
Mr. ESCOTT said the hen. gentleman had given him the
answer which it was, perhaps, his duty to give, but it was no
answer. He begged to ask the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Graham) if, atter the statement he had made last night, he
thought it consistent with his duty to inform the house who
were the persons holding high official situations who had
given the information to Mr. Gladstone on which he had
acted in his despatch ? If the right hon. baronet declined to
give this information, would he state his reasons fur with.
holding it
Sir J. GRAHAM should have been happy to comply with
the laudable desire of the hon. member for information, but
be was unable to give him semi-official information. He
was only therein his capacity of a private member of parlia-
ment. He said last night that his light hon. friend Mr.
Gladstone had received the information upon which he wrote
hisdespateh to Sir E. Wilmot, from three gentlemen. One
of them, who was then, but was not now in the service of
the crown, on being a_pplied to, refused to allow his
name to be given. He then went on to state
that Mr. Gladstone acted on the information of
two gentlemen, one of whom held a high office in the
colony, and another was in the public service in Van Die-
men's Land, but he was not prepared to give the names of
either. Their names had been communicated to the present
Sir E. Wilmot, and he (Sir J. Graham) did not think it
consistent with his duty to mention the names of either of
them. He had been asked to assign his reasons for this. He
did not think he was called on to do so, but he would say
that he thought it unjust to those gentlemen from whom,
probably, the present Sir Eardley Wilmot would require an
explanation, that they should be exposed for twelve months
to the obloquy of having given false information without any
IritTllli'llet2Von'irY(llOUPTar.CASE OF MR.

~F~:

therefore, feeling that he was not giving up his life office for
an uncertainty, sumesdered his clerkship and accepted the
appointment to the office of meteor, which appointment had
bees seemffesroittki: present Home Seereuury. The hill
in tits the home underwent emend altars-
tioss,i2 asp.ati-Sell by
the present Home Secretary and
the peanut Attempt
.43eseral that a preference would be
gives wasting fillelge provided they were considered min-
palest .0f the oemp yof Mr. Drew, the Home &cm-
tory had Oen hy *motioning his appointment muses-
ecte lint whet the eel pawed, instead of Mr. Drew being
continued. Mr. Clive, who had been an efficient police ma-
gistrate, had been appointed the judge el the court,
and Mr. Drew was offiard the office of clerk or regis- I
tear. This be considered to compromise his character sad
he hod declined to accept the subordinate office. Such
then was Mr. Drew's case. He had abandoned a lucrative
practice, be had surrendered an office for life worth 6001.
per anima, and when relying upon the provisions of the act
as it was presented to parliament, his hopes were disap-
pointed, and he felt himself stigmatised as being unlit for the
office by the appointment of another gentleman. He desired,
therefore, that the matter should be publicly considered, and
with this view he (Sir F. Thesiger) had brought it before
the house, in the form in which he had given notice, in the
hope it would elicit a satisfactory explanation from her
Majesty's government. In point of form, therefore, he now
moved that there be laid before the house a copy of a letter
from the Secretary of State for the Home Department ap-
proving of the appointment of Mr. Drew to be the assessor
of the Southwark and Brixton Court of Requests, under the
act 8 end 9 Vie., c. 127.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH seconded the motion.
Sir 0. GREY had not the slightest objection to the pro-
duction of the document moved for, but he could show that
Mr. Drew had not a shadow of a right to lay claim to the
office of judge of the new court; on the contrary, he was
precluded from the possibility of holding the cities by the
provisions of the original bill, as introduced by the Duke of
Bucclench,u president of the council in the late administra-
tion. That bill provided that any judge or meow who
held that Office on the Ist of June, 1846, should be the first
judge of the new court to be established. Now on the lot of
June, 1846, Mr. Drew had not been appointed assessor, and
therefore his claim, on that suggestion, fell to the ground. In
fact, it was not until the 28th of July that the memorial re•
questing his (Sir George Grey's) sanction of Mr. Drew's
appointment was dated, and he (Sir G. Grey) only dis-
charged all he was required to do—namely, on proof
that Mr. Drew was an attorney of ten years' standing, and
of unexceptionable cheritter (as he truly believed Mr,
Drew to be), he had confirmed the appointment. When
the new law pared, the eppoiutments of these judges were
vested in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, and that
discretion his lordship had exercised ; but out of 60 judges,
he had retained 32 previous holders of similar offices. There
was no objection to Mr. Drew on the ground that he was
an attorney and not a barrister, but still he (Sir G. Grey)
was prepared to defend the appointment of Mr. Clive, in
preference to Mr. Drew. The Court of Requests, over which
Mr. Drew had presided, had only jurisdiction to the extent of
Se, whereas the new court's jurisdiction was extended to 201.
The duties of the court were,consequently, now much more
onerous and responsible. Mr. Drew had clearly failed in
proving that any injustice had been dime to him, for he had
not been a judge, but only a clerk, and the junior of two
clerks. At the same tiwe, he had no objection to the
motion of the hon. and learned gentleman.
Mr. GOCLBURN said it was very extraordinary, if Mr.
Drew's claim was so utterly unfounded, according to the
terns of the act, that that answer had not at once been
returned to his first memorial. Whatever were the result
of this motion, the discussion would have the effect of
showing that the character of Mr. Drew was wholly ones-
cept;onable.
Sir F. THESIGER said tte right hon. gentleman
opposite had leR the strong part of the case entirely un-
answered. It could not be said that Mr. Drew was not a
judge on the 26th August last. If he had no claim what-
ever, why should the Lord Chancellor have remarked to the
deputation who waited on him on the subject, that it was a
very hard cue ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he had Feinted out
at the time that the whole of the eighty judges could not
have claims—only about sixty appointments being to be
made. He was, therefore, at a less to know how any obser-
vations could have been construed into a pledge by Mr. Drew
or his friends. His appointment as assessor had only been made
in July, 1846 ; while the bill, as originally framed, reserved the
right to those persons only who had been judges or assessors
on the let of June, 1846. This provision had been purposely
introduced, to prevent appointments being made with a view
to the operation of the bill. How, then, could Mr. Drew,
himself an attorney, and a person professing to be competent
to act as judge of a court, contend that his claim was founded
on this provision ? The answer to the case was simply this,
that Mr. Drew had no claim on the ground preferred by him-
self; consequently, be had no tight to complain of injustice;
and the case ought not to leave been brought forward.
Although he had been type inted judge in July, 1846, the
inferior office of clerk had not yet been tilled up, and was
probably rill open to him. This more lucrative office had
been offered to him, and declined, perhaps, on account of its
inferior dignity ; therefore he had certainly no sight to
complain.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that Mr. Clive, the judge ap-
pointed to this court, was not one of the eighty former
judges. The ease had been the same at Birmingham : Mr.
Guest, the old officer, had not a claim, and the judge ap-
pointed in hie stead was not one of the eighty of I judges.
The motion was then,agreed to.
BONDING AND RECTIFICATION OF BRITISH