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

sinners by his disclosures, but Mr. Lewis was most dogged in
his evasion of any satisfactory reply—the very perfection of
a non mi record° witness—though in his doubtless prepared
I anew ereto prepareS questions on the part of the governme•it,
he was glib enough. Mr. Lewis and the right hon. baronet,
and the party, thought they had very completely destroyed
all the documentary correspondence which might expose
them they had destroyed much, no doubt, but there was
much in existence which they should find rause to tremble
at. He now came to a case in reference to which he dis-
tinctly charged the right hon. baronet with making in that
house statements which at the time of putting them
forward as true, he knew to be false. He should
exhibit the manner in which the Home-office and
the commissioners conspired together for the purpose
of getting up reports to crush those who opposed their tyran-
nical proceedings lie would first speak as to the Bolton
case in 1841. The person employed by the commissioners in
these infamous proceedings was a man of the name of Mott,
who form, rly gained a living by farming the poor in several
large parishes in London, wherein he carried out the brutal
Malthusian doctrine of teaching the poor to live on a coarser
sort of food, and a very small quantity of that. Having by
this ill qualification recommended himself to the notice of
the corncob/loners, he became an assistant commissioner ;
from which office he was ere long dismissed for measures
which the public should now be made acquainted with for
the first time. But, though dismissed frost that particular
position, he was still employed by the commissioners—he had
gut hold of some of their secrets, and they were afraid of
him—and he became editor of a concern called the .Veie
Poor Los, Circular, puldiehed under the sanction of the
commissioners. This soon went to the dogs ; and the man
then became a partner in that den of horrors, the Haydock
Lunatic Asylum, the other partner being Coode, and
I both being partners with the full knowledge and
sanction of the commissioners. This frightful place
being exposed and broken up. Mott was made auditor of a
district union at a salary of 800/. a year. He next figured in
a court of 1 ter, Pleading the statute of limitations against a
clear debt of 3,0001. ; and, by-and by, not withstanding his
y
800/. a year, the man was obliged to fl the country to avoid
his creditors. The instant that he landed from the Isle of
Man at Liverpool, he was arrested, and put into Lancaster
gaol. Why was such a man as this retained year after year
in the employment of the commissioners ? Simply because
he had got hold of some of their secrets. It was with a report
drawn up by this man Mott, that the late Secretary of State
had sought, in June, 1842, to crush him (Mr. Ferrand), the
right hon. baronet not having bad the generosity, the manli.
nese, the common decency, to give him the slightest previous
notice of the statements he WILI about to make against him on
the authority of this man statement., every one of which
were subsequently disproved in the fullest manner by the '
testimony of fourteen gentlemen of the highest respectability '
and honour. Well, the next employment of Mr. Mott was
a special commission to inquire at Bolton into allegations
which had been mule by the hon. and learned member for
that borough respecting the administration of the poor-law
there. Mr. Mott went down, but he made no inquiry in the
slightest degree to the purpose, sedulously avoiding, on
the contrary, all the persons who were acquainted with the
fact., and being denied to them when they called upon him
to proffer the information which he wholly neglected to seek.
He made a report, to order of course, with which the right
hon. baronet came down upon the hon. member for Bolton,
and for the time seemed altogether to crush him. The re-
port, however, was no sooner printed and made known at
Bolton, than Mr. Ashworth, a man of spotless honour, and
'a number of other gentlemen of the first respectability of
character, inquired into the matter, and, by the oaths of
twelve persona before three magistrates, distinctly and in the
fullest manner disproved all Mott's statements, giving. them
the lie direct ; and the evidence of these parties was imme-
diately communicated to the Secretary of State by Mr.
Ashworth, with an indignant vindication of the
truth of the stattmeat which had been made by the
honourable and learned member for Bolton. The
brother of the late Conservative member for Bolton,
also, in a letter to the right hon. baronet, denounced Mott's
report as wholly false and slanderous. Yet, afterall this, the
right hon. baronet ventured to get up in the house and ex-
press his entire confidence in Mr. Mott's reports ; and again,
in the Keighley inquiry case, relied upon his report, the
whole of which report was again, in the most distinct mea-
ner, repudiated as false and slanderous by local gentlemen al
well known honour. In the same case, he charged the right
hon. baronet at the time with having sent Sir J. Walnuts
to Keighley to prepare a previously arranged report, and
the right hon. baronet only met the charge with an evasion.
Ou the 26th of April, 1844, the right hon. member for Dor-
chester stated that he could not find that any communica-
tion had taken place between himself and Mr. Mott respecting
the latter gentleman's report. He (Mr. Ferrand) had
never said that there had been direct communication, nor
did he know at the time that there bad been communica-
tions between the right hon. baronet and Mr. Lewis, the
poor-law commissioner. Subsequently, however, a" split"
had taken place among the parties, and it was ascertained
that Mr. Lewis had been made a tool of. for the purpose of
destroying his (Mr. Ferrand's) character. Mr. Lewis ad-
mitted before the Andover committee that Mr. Mott had
received instructions from the commissioners to investigate
the affairs of the Keighley union. What then must the
house think of the right honourable baronet's assertion,
that Mr. Mott had acted in the matter without
instructions. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ferrand) asserted
that Mr. Mott acted under instructions ; and he should be
able to prove it to the satisfaction of the house. The hon.
member read some extracts from the evidence taken before
the Andover committee, to prove that Mr. Mott acted
under a direction. But the house should hear something
more extraordinary on the subject He held in his hand the
affidavit of a most respectable gentleman named Barker, who
swore that he remembered having accompanied Mr. Mott in
his journey to the Keighley union on the 13th April, 1842.
Deponent swore that on that occasion Mr. Mott told him
that he had received instructions to visit the union and re-
port the result to the commissioners. Now this was about
the time when the House of Common' pronounced his
(Mr. Ferrand's) statements on the subject to be calumnious
and unfounded. Deponent further said, that Mr. Mott told
him that Mr. ',errand's statement was true, and that he (Mott)
had documents in his possession to prove it. Deponent fur-
ther expressed his full belief that Mr. Mott acted all through
under instructions from the Secretary of State for the Home
Department. With respect to the ease of Mr. Day, he dis-
tinctly charged the right hon. baronet with having summa-
rily dismissed that gentleman to make room for his friend
Mr. Twissleton.' Mr. Day, the man who had been robbed of
his appointment—robbed by the right hon. baronet—wrote
on the 21st of January, 1814, requesting him not to fill up
his situation until some tien... had been given for inquiry, or
until he had consulted the commissioners. To this the right
hon. barmet replied, that he could not interfere, as the
matter rested wholly with the commissioners ; and yet, be
fore the Andover committee, Mr. Lewis stated his impression
that Mr. Day had been dismissed in eonsvpienee of Sir J.
°reliant's desire to make roam for Mr. Twnaleton. (Hear.)
Was it not clear, then, that the right hon. baronet ha
robbed pone Day of his daily bread? (Laughter.) He should
trouble the house with but one more document, and on that
document he should ground his application for a committee.
in the evidence taken before the Andover committee, he
found that, on the 13th Aug., 1846, Mr. Christie asked Mr.
Lewis, b Were there any particular reasons for calling on
Mr. Mott to resign ?" The question caused a great sensa-
tion, and Mr. Lewis replied, "The committee will excuse
my replying to that question." Would the right bon.
gentleman tell the house whether there were any particular
reasons ? He (Mr. Ferrand) would tell the house the reason;
.it was because the right hon. bar met dare net employ Mr.
Mott any longer, because he wished to be able to say in the
house that the men was politically dead, let his ashes be not
disturbed. But be doss ens that still the home bad a
right, he personally bad a right to have the matter fully in-
blet..,itaotlelyd,uwwhilti,bewliiiileeths • honuocurerswwoouljdbebefocuonvde to
red
with Infamy and diesrace. The hon. member concluded by
making the motion which is inserted at the commencement
of his speech.
Sir T. GRAHAM bad come down to the house prepared
to address himself to a motion embracing a large question of
public policy coupled with a considerable amount of personal
accusation against himself. The hon. member for Kamm-
borough bad, however, departed from the terms of his mo-
tion, had given up the question of general policy, and con-
fined himself wholly to the personal attack.. He (Sir J.
Graham) had thought that hisretirement from her Majesty's
service to the present station which he then occupied, and the
Bence be had observed for several months giving offence to
no one, might have mitigated the bitter hostility with which
the hon. member for Knaresbornegh delighted to pursue
him. He had been disappointed in this expectation, but at
the same time he was prepared to make every allowance for
the hon. member's peculiar position. The hon. member bad
told them, that statements made under the pressure
of an indictment for misdemeanour should be received
with great allowance. Now he thought it right
to recall the attention of the house to the circumstances
under which the honourable member had delivered his
speech. He should endeavour, shortly, temperately, but
firmly, to touch upon each subject introduced by the
honourable member, the principal one being what
the hon. member for Shrewsbury had termed the celebrated
Mott case. This case was first brought under notice in 1842,
and with the permission of the house he would recall the cir-
cumstance of its first introduction. The allegation then
made was, that he and one or more of the poor-law commis-
sioners had conspired to procure a false report for the pur-
pose of injuring the hon. member for Knaresborough. In
1812, the accusation had not assumed a substantive form,
the hon. member being then satisfied with denying the truth
of the reports of Sir J. Walsham and Mr. Mott. He was ad-
vised by the hon. and gallant member for Marylebone to press
for a committee to inquite into their truth, but he declined.
The first allegation was, that this committee was packed.
NOW he would read the names of the members of that com-
mittee—Sir C. Napier, Mr. Childers. Mr. Pakangton, Sir
J. Trollope, Col, Wood, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. W.
Williams, Mr. Ablaut, Mr. Grimsditch, Capt. Pechell, Mr.
Bolton Clive, Mr. Colville, and Mr. T. Duncombe. (Hear,
hear.) And what was the report which the bon. member
had designated a tisane of trumped up falsehoods? (Hear.)
The charges brought by the hon. member were, first, that
the report of Mr. Mott was fake; and secondly, that the
report of Sir John Waltham was Wee. The report
of the committee dealt separately with the two cases.
It said, with regard to Mr. Mott's report, that it was borne
out in all its most important allegations by the evidence of
the very witnesses called to impugn it; and as to Sir J.
WaLhanes, the committee said that no attempt had been
made to impugn its general accuracy, nor, with one or two
trifling and immaterial exceptions, any of the details.
(Hear.) And this was what the hon. member had desig-
nated " tramped up falsehoods."
Mr. FERRAND: I did not say so.
Sir J. GRAHAM had taken a note of the words, hut
should be glad to know that the hon. member wished to
retract them.
Mr. FERRAND : I said • tramped up report."
Sir J. GRAHAM : It was fur the house to say whether
the description of the report given by the hon. member,