The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-04 00:00:00

MILBANK. PRISON.

Mr. M. GORE moved that the report made to her Majesty
by Mr. Escott, a Member of this House, on the state of Mil-
bank Prison, be laid before this House.
Sir G. GREY requested that the motion should be with-
drawn. A Commission had been appointed of three Commis-
sioners, who were to make a joint report. Now he was (mite
willing to receive it in the shape of a letter from the Hon.
Member, the only way, he apprehended, that he could re-
ceive it, and he would then lay it upon the table of the House.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that his ideas of what was correct
differed from those of the Right Hon. Baronet. He was com-
manded to report by the Commission of her Majesty, and he
did not think he would be fulfilling that command by writing
a letter to the Secretary of State. Though he was not
anxious to stand on ceremony, he considered that a principle
was involved •, and he was not willing to concede it.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he did not wish the Hon.
Member to change a single word of his report, but only the
form it.
Mr. B. ESCOTT replied. _ _

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE was sorry that the House, instead
of coming to the subject-matter itself, should be engaged
with a mere matter of form. But, sneaking of a matter of
form, he did think the Hon. Member (Mr. B. Escott) was in
the right, for it was in accordance with precedent and the
commands of her Majesty, that a report should be made by
the commission. Such was the language of the document
by which they had been appointed, commanding them to
inquire into the matter, and make a report touching the
same. In fact the duties of the Commissioners would not
be completely discharged unless they made and brought up
their report; yet, so far from doing this, they had kept their
report open till another was ready to be sent in from
another Committee. He recollected that in the case of
a former commission, of which Sir Francis Palgrave
was a member, that gentleman had sent in a report separate
from that of the other commissioners, and he did not under-
stand how that should not rule -in the present instance.
Indeed, without a report from the Hon. Member for Win-
chester, the papers of the commission would not be com-
pleted He at the same time could not help saying that he
did not agree with that Hon. Gentleman in the opinion
which he had formed, an opinion, as it appeared to him,
which he could not have arrived at, if he had read all the
evidence over attentively. But to return to the matter of
form which was the subject before the House; it might be
immaterial whether the result of the commission came
before the •House in the shape of a letter or of a report ;
but there could be little doubt that a report was the proper
form for the commissioners to adopt.
Mr. ROEBUCK said in the instance before the House
a commission had been appointed, consisting of three per
sons, and tower was given to any two of them, together to
do certain things; unless two of them were together it was
clear that they could not legally and in fulfilment of her
Majesty's Commission do any act; that if the Commissioners
instead of meeting tozether, should transact the business re-
quired of them, each in a• separate chamber, the Acts so
done would be illegal. Brone clause-of her Majesty's Com-
mission, power was given to-Itny two of them together, and
no fewer, to., discharge the ctnties of the Commission. But
when they eame to another clause, requiring the Commis-
sioners generally to ream:4 the construction of that clause
must be rulid by the former chute, so that the meaning
must be ten to be that not "fewer than two of them to-
gether cnu legally: draw up a report on the transactions of
.. .
the Comm'E
,on.

Mr. FOX'MAULE iias sorry that the House should pass
their time on a matter which would really come to no issue.
It was agreed that a report from the Commission ought to
be laid before the House, and he was of opinion that a report
ought to be made irrespective of the Hon. Member for
Winchestef. He recollected that in the case of the Poor
Inquiry Commission appointed for Scotland, one of the mem-
bers of thit Commission was a dissentient from the report,
but instoad:of interfering with that re,ort, that Hon. Gen-
tleman sent in a separate report to the Secretary of State,
and he thought that the Hon. Member for Winchester ought
to follow the same p-ecedent.
The motion was then withdrawn.
_.- - MILITARY STATISTICS.

Mr. HUME inquired of tke Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of the War Department ( Mr. F. Maule) whether
the military statistics of India, which Major Tulloch had
been formerly engaged in, would be resumed? These sta-
tistics were of the greatest importance, and ought to be
forthcoming without delay. He would also ask tke Right
Hon. Gentleman whether he had received the returns re-
garding the health of the troops in India, which he (Mr.
Hume) had firmed for two years ago?
Mr. F. MAULE said he was not aware that the returns
referred to, by the Hon. Gentleman had been received, but
he would inquire at the War-office. In reference to the sta-
tistics of Colonel Tulloch, the other engagements of that
Gallant Officer had for a time interfered with their continu-
ance, but they would be resumed as soon as possible.
Mr. HUME gave notice, that on Tuesday next he would
move an address to her Majesty, if found necessary, that
these statistics be continued forthwith by some public dicer,
for which duty he knew of none better qualified than the
Gallant Officer who had been referred to. _

The House then adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

PETITIONS. ON PRIVATE BILLS.
.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner Sarum)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
In the following unopposed cases the customary formal
proofs were completed, and the standing orders complied
with :
Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge, Royston, and Ware
Line, with a Branch to the River Cam, and also a Branch
to the Royston and Hitchin Railway).
Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Bedford, with a'
Branch to Royston, and two Branches to Biggleawade).
London and Blackwell Railway Improvement and Branches
to the St. Katherine and London D mks.
East Lincolnshire Railway (Louth- Navigation Purchase).
OPPOSED LIST.
MIDLAND RAILWAY (SHEFFIELD, BARNSLEY,
'DONCASTER, AND GOOLE).
This adjourned case was resumed. The inquiry occupied
the whole of the day, but the allegations sustained were not
worthy of note:- - -
(Room 23, before Mr. Examiner MAY.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
In the following cases the formal proofs were put in, and
the standing orders complied with :
London and. South-Western Railway (Widening thereof be-
tween Wandsworth and Nine Elms, and Enlargement-of
the York,: road Station, and Amendment of the London
and Soutly Western Acts).
Manchester and Southport Railway and Branches.
OPPOSED LIST.
MIDLAND" RAILWAY (MASBOROUGII AND NOR-
MANTON STATIONS' ENLARGEMENT).
In this case the opposition was withdrawn, and the
standing orders-complied with. •• •
CORNWALL AND. DEVON CENTRAL AND PLY--
MOUTH RAILWAY AND- BRANCHES.
This adjourned case was then resumed.
, Allegations were sustained impugning the accuracy of the
books of reference, in as, far as particular roads on the route of
the proposed line were misdescribed. Other allegations of a
similar character were also sustained.
The case was further adjourned.