The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-22 00:00:00

IRISH RAILWAYS BILL.

Mr. D. CALLAGHAN presented several petitions
from Cork in favour of the Railways (Ireland) Bill.
LEICESTER WATER-WORKS BILL.

On the motion of Mr. GISBORNE, this Bill was read
a third time and passed.
BOWES ESTATE BILL. _ .

Mr. GREENE the Examiner of Peti-
tions for Private Bills have leave to sit and proceed, with
reference to Bowes Estate Bill, to-morrow."

Motion agreed to.
WYNDHAM'S ESTATE BILL AND SIR HENRY

WILLOUGHBY ROOKE'S ESTATE BILL.

. _
Mr. GREENE moved—" That the Examiner of Peti-
tions for Private Bills have leave to sit and proceed on
Wyndham's Estate Bill and Sir Henry Willoughby
Rooke's Estate Bill to-morrow."

This motion was also agreed to.
Sir A. CLIFFORD, the Usher of the Black Rod, ap-
peared at the table, and summoned tha Speaker and the
House to the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent
given by commission to several Bills, for which see
Lords report.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION BILL.

Sir G. GREY presented a petition in favour of the
Medical Registration Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a similar petition.
GRANTS TO IRISH RAIWAYS.
Mr. F. FRENCH presented several petitions from
various places in Ireland, in favour of the motion for a
grant of money in aid of the Irish railways.
Mr. MANGLES also presented a petition in favour of
the Medical Registration Bill.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the order
of the day for the third reading of the Poor•law Ad-
ministration Bill, was read for the purpose of being
postponed.____

Mr. CHRISTIE said that he was sorry to be obliged
to ask the indulgence of the House for a further
explanation upon a personal subject, and he trusted that
the House would think that it was not his fault that
public business was again delayed that evening ; but the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had, without giving
him any notice of his intention to do so, reverted, on
Friday evening last, to a matter which was in dispute
between them. On Thursday last he gave a direct
denial to a statement put forward by the Hon-
ourable Member for Wolverhampton that he Mr.
Christie) had asked Sir Frankland Lewis, when en-
, gaged upon the Andover Committee, as to the existence
of an arrangement between him and his son, as to his
retirement from office. After he (Mr. Christie) had
denied that statement, the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton interrupted him and contradicted it, and he a
second time distinctly denied it. On Friday evening
the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton reiterated the
statement which he (Mr. Christie) had twice denied, and
brought forward evidences and authorities before that
House, to show that the question which he dis-
puted had been put. If he had put this ques-
tion, and had afterwards twice denied it, then
he could not escape the charge of wilful falsehood,
which had been the subject of remark from the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton, on Friday last, without
notice to him that he intended to bring it for-
ward. He hoped the House would now allow
him to state what had taken place on that occa-
sion. Sir F. Lewis had already given the Committee a
very unfavourable opinion of Mr. Chadwick, and he
asked Sir Frankland why, entertaining such an opinion
of the gentleman in question, he had retained him in
his office for four successive years. Having got an
answer, he (Mr. Christie) proceeded to ask Sir Frank-
land about his son succeeding him in the office of
Poor-law Commissioner, and he made a preamble to the
question somewhat in this wise—" On your ceasing to
be a Poor-law Commissioner, I believe a previous
arrangement has been made for your son
succeeding you." Upon the word arrangement
being mentioned Sir Frankland Lewis imme-
diately showed symptoms of strong feeling
on the subject. He (Mr. Christie) then turned to the
Noble Chairman and wished him to clear the room.
The room was then ordered to be cleared; but Sir F.
Lewis entreated to be heard in answer. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) thought his answer
should be heard. But the room was cleared, and
he (Mr. Christie) rose as having been the
person to wi-h the room to be cleared,
and said, that he was surprised at the feel-
ing which he had unhappily been the occasion
of exciting, and he begged to say that he would not
push for an answer. If Sir F. Lewis, however, should
wish to answer the question he would do so, not
at his (Mr. Christie's): suggestion, but at his
own wish. It seemed, however, that the Honour-
able Member for Wolverhampeon had brought
forward a letter from Sir F. Lewis, stating the thing
differently. His (Mr. Christie's) opinion was, that there
was misconception at the time, and indeed Sir F. Lewis
could not clearly understand what had passed, con-
si tering the excitement to which he was sub-
ject at the time. Reference, however, was made
to the short-hand writer's notes. The short-hand
writer had made a very incorrect statement in his
report, which the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
himself admitted to be most contradictory, and
he thought that that Honourable Member having
admitted that contradiction, should have been
slow to impeach the veracity of another person
in this matter. The Honourable Member for
Wolverhampton also read a report from the Times,
which gave a long account of what occurred before the
room was cleared. He would read that report to the
House, and he begged to observe that the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton did not read all that report. (The
Hon. Member here read that portion of the report,
commencing with the question to Sir Frankland Lewis,
" Did you not leave the commission on the belief that
your son should succeed?" and terminating with the
observation of Mr. Christie, that " he had cleared the
room ;" and continued)—So the Times reporter as-
serted that he bad cleared the room. Now the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton asserted that he had
not done so. The report continued:--" He cleared the
room because be wished to explain to the Committee
that the question had been misunderstood by Sir
Frankland 'Lewis, and he wished to explain that he did
not wish to make any imputation on his (Sir
Frankland Lewis's) sod?' The llon. Member con-
tinued. Now, on his honour as a gentleman, and as a
Member of that House, he never did put any question of
that description; and if be had put such a question, he
should be the very first to admit that his
conduct was deserving of the utmost condemnation.
He should now read a letter from the lion. Member for
Shaftesbury. The Hon. Member did so, and the letter
fully bore out the statement of the Hon. Member. He
was extremely grateful to the House for this opportunity
of explanation.
Lord COURTENAY said that his recollection sub-
stantially agreed with the statement made by the
Honourable Gentleman. He could now have no
doubt that his Honourable Friend was the per-
son who suggested that the room should be
cleared, and on the parties having withdrawn, he took
the earliest opportunity of explaining that his question
had been misunderstood, and that he deeply regretted
the pain which had been inflicted upon Sir F. Lewis.
Of the ability with which the inquiry had been conducted,
all were equally -agreed to speak highly. It should be
recollected that two gentlemen appeared there as advo-
cates, which rendered it necessary to give to the exami-
nation more of ,a personal character than was usual on
such investigations as these. But, during the whole of
that inquiry, he was bound to say that his Hon. Friend
had conducted his inquiries with the most entire absence
of personal feeling, and with the utmost desire to exhibit
fairness towards all concerned.
Mr. DISRAELI and Mr. MINTZ rose at the same mo-
ment, and as the latter stated that he only wished to
make one observation, the former was giving way to
him, when—

Lore JOHN RUSSELL interposed, and said that he
had only wished to offer one word, which was to move
the order of the day, to give the Hon. Member for Wey-
mouth an opportunity for his personal explanation, and
he thought that that purpose being answered it was un-
necessaryto protract the discussion.

Mr. DISRAELI said that he had not the slightest
desire to prolong this conversation, but as the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) was not
present, he was bound to say that, during an inquiry, in
the course of which more than thirty thousand ques-
tions were asked, not one had been put which was not
relevant to the matter ; and he stated this because he
believed that great misapprehension prevailed rela-
tive to the course which had been pursued in
this Committee. He the more desired to say this be-
cause he believed that nobody could act with more fair-
ness than the Hon. Member for Weymouth • and he
had certainly shown himself master' of the subject, and
that was a great quality. No one could have acted with
greater Propriety than he had done.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said that he was bound to
say that he heard every question, and he could not for-
bear bearing
with reference to then
honourablethleamrttai
cu testimony to the conduct of
the Honourable
t
udesidtionnotcotmhpinlakineeidthoefr,
that it was made,
mar
, hear.)
his
slilqe
general mode of exansina-
Mr. CHRISTIE wished to tion was unfair.—(u
explain; that the reason
explanation was, thar it
he did not give notice of
Is (Mr. Christie's)
was merely a matter of veracity on
part, not involving any one but himself.
INDIAN COHN.
Mr. MUNTZ called the attention of the Government
to the fact that their agents were themselves the mer-
chants in the provincial towns of Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCET.EQUER, said
that the agents had only ditectiong to sell at she

price of the next market town, they had none to under-
sell, nor did he think that they had done so. The
Government agents had adjusted their prices ac-
cording to the market prices, and they had instructions
not to interfere with the usual prices of corn. If parties
who had bought at a high price refused to sell at a low
one, while the Government agents sold their corn, it was
nothing to be charged against the Government.
_ POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.

Lord MAHON wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, which was of some importance to many Members
in that House ; he wished to know when it was pro-
posed to bring forward the Prison's Bill, the Custody of
Offenders Bill, and the Poor-law Administration Bill. It
was very desirable that these Bills should be brought
forward at a time when those Members who were par-
ticularly interested in them could be present at the dis-
cussion, and it was also desirable that they should know
the order in which they would be taken.

Sir G. GREY said that it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to move the third reading of the
Poor-law Administration Bill the first order of the day
on Thursday next ; after that, to go into Committee
upon the Custody of Offenders Bill ; and then to take
the Prisons Bill.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY wished to ask whether it was
the intention of the Government to provide any remedy
for an evil which had grown up and prevailed in the
Central Criminal Court—a court which ought to be
an example to all other criminal courts in the
kingdom. He allwledj to the practice of not giving
briefs for the prosecution to counsel in
cases of felony or misdemeanour ; or if any
were given the allowance for fee was so small that no
respectable counsel would take it. By this means the
judge, who was very frequently quite ignorant of the
previous facts of the case, was obliged to examine the
witnesses, and, contrary to his proper office, was literally
a counsel against instead of for the prisoner. A similar
evil practice prevailed in the courts in the northern dis-
tricts of the country.
Sir G. GREY said that the attention of the Govern-
ment had been called to this evil, as existing in the
Central Criminal Court, and arrangements were in pro-
gress to obviate the inconvenience complained of.
THE GREAT BRITAIN.

Lord INGESTRE asked the Secretary for the. Ad-
miralty why the paddle-box boats to ply between Holy-
head and Dublin had not been provided by the Admi-
ralty ? and whether any plan had been recorded of the
efficient breakwater which has been made for the Great
Britain steam ship before that breakwater was de•
stroyed ?
Mr. WARD intimated that a Commision had been
appointed to inspect the proceedings with respect to that
vessel.