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

'~

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 29, 1847

take --"''''.....0w.5if....r..mir,ra.....--- -
the li bertv of submitting to the House.
(Tln ) is
the Amber here quoted extracts from
,Ref 'oeurne nts referred to, exculpatory of his conduct.).
;teter,.ing to the conduct of the late Secretary of
(Mi.- .„,'et' the Home Department in reference to himself
iteit..' errand), he thought there were scarcely any
•lam;„-ns on record of an ex -Minister of that House
4,-1 taken such an unfair advantage of a Member.
Callve ft remembered -with what effect he (Sir James
sedr3a tn) came down to th?,t, House and drew from the
(fit,Q ix the papers containing those charges against hsien.i.
tin • Ferrand), and the manner in which these accu
pi"„ 8 1 tad been received by the House, and the conduct
Aga` Noble Member for London on that occasion. But.ll
twoat I rere the consequences? There were, and are sti. ,
Igt nt!einen most active in carrying out that law, who
to cent ver since entered a court, or busied themselves
Thrall' ring it out. Sir John Walsham, .in his statement,
.) r contradicted Mr. Mott in all his statements.
ihe'n 1 tight lion. Baronet, Sir James Graham,
thin, went on to say, " This was the state of
toe 6'3, in the north of England—a district favoured
ItnaruY the presence of the lion. Member for
*teal )orough, and if he were not tearful of,
The , -ir g the House, he would complete th picture.!_
sly ! " use cried out from all parts "Go on, go on.::
ti4de4,' said the Right Hon. Baronet, " I will go on."
ha ,ac !.ordingly he went on to show that "jobbing"
Nen tot ng on to a great extent, and that considerable
kieltti einent was given to lawyers to create legal dtil..e
sh '• There was not a single word of truth in ,
diteole 0,
.'that charge preferred by Mr. Mott, under the
hitetio4 •of the Right Hon. Baronet, and referre, to by
446.4100) i that occasion, it was a complete "trumped up"
Lag...-'oe I', the rriagistra!es never interfered at all in the
it's• • - eat of the Keighley Union. He (Mr. Ferrand)
ttt
ele, eted chairman of the board, without his
...r ) c nowledge, but he never acted once upon the
: ,an d upon hearing the false statement made, he
ih't _:diatel y rose from his seat to deny the statement.
N.-e had been parties who had given information,
„...,st• e the, r received it from, he did not know, but he
07,,tal nly el id receive information between the 17th and
)
--1,„,` 3f June, that " foul work " was going on at Somer-
ti; ouse with reference to the Keighley Union. Upon
ite t's,eipt •of that information, he (Mr. Ferrand) had
Med in h is place in the House, that the Right Hon.
baronet E sir James Graham, had referred to ar, port
eatind the , 17th June, made by a paid Assistant
per,„„a 13401 is officer of the Government, who, for special
G •r"ses, sad made a report, with a view to mislead the
uvernni nt. That charge was never contradicted. On
the 24th •
?f th rt, 11 istant, the Right lion. Baronet, the First Lord
in fan, 41't usury (Sir Robert Peel), addressed the House
(Mr, our of a new Poor-law. Upon that occasion, he
tar err 3 sad) saw the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secre-
GrYb" B I
hurl„s, ate for the Home Department (Sir James
odaraJt:
than forward to the red box, and the thought
' y struck him (Mr. Ferrand) that another
false a„a
tent ,"',,i ialumnious report, prepared by the Govern-
light, ""°_,L (Mr. Mott), was about to be dragged into
cane,',,anu used against him. But lo ! and behold, out
the - ' COn tenission prepared by Sir John Walsham, upon
till:rate ot the workhouses in the Bingley Union, con-
eeemilLthe • most horrifying statements about the living
thin r,.""J'en •
ing the dead, and other disgraceful
lie,r ' .` is it not then," continued the Right
4 atop e Baronet, " time to interfere to put
receiPet° t hese disgraceful scenes ? Sir John Walsham
dress; d h istructions (continued Mr. Ferrand, and ad-
eo, tag S it James Graham, who sat behind him) from
it . alit,. pare this report. I challenge you to disprove
called ki lb arged you with it at the time, and then
that ",,21P0 a you to disprove it if you could." Upon
lieuse mi ton the Right Hon. Baronet, addressing the
made Issi dl, that after that direct appeal which had been
!lords ° b im, he would endeavour to answer it in as few
nein., 18 ossi•ole, and stated that Sir John Walsham
bested to IWe Barnley, he (Sir James Graham) bad sug-
sir acr th e Poor-law Commissioners the propriety of
bisien , ;r1 Walsham paying a visit to the Keighley
ail ~..
y the , - 0 esequence of the dissatisfaction expressed
Mote, - Eion- Member for Knaresborough at Mr.
order the
: '1
eport ; and also to inquire into the
43. r. Lewis just issued with reference to outdoor relief.
(continued Mr. Ferrand), in his examination
sent to ..,1 ''9°mEnittee, said " that Sir John Walsham was
from sir sit the Keighley workhouse, with directions
thensant
othfatth,th:rveaSt,:igata?rshant." This was sufficient proof
Hon. Baronet was perfectly cogni-
Quetta-, h tof that gentleman to Keighley. Subse-
bio, Y t, (Mr. Ferrand) moved for certain returns,
They
n we' aid have r d
tfilis4it_rhx.easvreela,..,:,
,de,oGuhrorwaahneavdraeprove the falsehood of these reports.
however, refused by the Right Hon. Baronet
He (Mr.
.Ferrand) then appealed
e elm , the manly feeling of the Noble Lord
who, see;. 2 r for the City of London (Lord John Russell)
majority g that there was no chance of his obtaining a
gave his _ should the House divide upon the question,
11 tit first ' assent at length, though he strenuously opposed
, to the production of the papers. A Select
.aCannisittt e was afterwards appointee) with considerable
ity to inquire into the Keighley union. He (Mr.
could tell believed
House that
h
the Conservya.tiv
Committee was packed, and he
Ass called Sir Thomas Fremantle,
iwho
i.l. Ferri tad) with a list of pwerhsioPnPZrainna asked him !boimIl;
(`tact the 1 _embers of his Committee. He (Mr. Ferrand)
bowing V sat the case was so clear, said " it is no matter
Colonel .otoaltde." Sir Thomas Fremantle then went to
Quest;_ t. , another Hon. Member of that House, re •
142:44 s have his name on the Committee. The Hon.
ca-lusn r eplied that he was about to leave town, and
Ceu„'t(l.l..et. possibly serve. His name was, however, still
ruelloilro:od_etr:r:l3_sdu.oro.l:sfni e
.Committee, and consequently they had one
their number. Now, with reference to Mr.
sort, he (Mr. Ferrand) could prove that false
titT.pi i ircumstance. Mr. Mott charged, in his report
‘ me Bt lard of Guardians were acting in defiance ofthe
the Commissioners. In the documents which
si icceeded in obtaining, the Commissioners ad-
ylimiieeatntrceadelBtotba t there was no evidence to show any disobe•
tl 'se orders of Somerset House. It was in the
the ...ots4, t bat these papers were laid upon the table of
Itezr.,t Mott s, and twelve months after the report made by
:,..,:: tor 80l to n
which upon the Boltotk Union, in consequence of'
..`l,u rat, )rt or some reason known to the Hon. Mem-
(Dr. Bowliri,ng), Mr. Mott was. dismissed..
" hy, then„ was Mr,
d smiseal? in anstpeeemcfailoymeddeagbain
him
rollurs
previous di
had taken
a at Leeds, he stated that Z JanYles Grahamnraham
lion.
Me isteps to prepare a report in order to crush an
at ier of that House, and. that he had dismissed
the poor to d whoohad beers the instrument of preparing
that repos t.
after the date ofn thie 26th April, 1844, shortly
Graham sa id, in s speech at Leeds, Sir J.
the
that he had en-
place which had taken
deavoured t, a find an c
place between himself7anoclinaouseM,
but he ha.d ootttb%inthabrelefetroendcoe s too.
the Keighloy Union,
Now he (Mr., Ferrand) had not ct gad him with having
did not knovv
any correspondence on the sub.e: that at that, time he (Sir James Gr'rahe `vas in con-
stant interx:ourse with Mr. Mott or Anlr )
Right Bon. Baronet also said that he ha.d_Leenwdeis.avouTehede
between
been to recollect any conversation which took himself and the Poor-law Commissioners itteb:s
been able to recollect anything, neither had the P not
law Commissioners to whom he had spoken °n the
been table to call to their recollectiun
eo any v umiunicatioas, or any correspondence upon the erbal
s_
acct. There was no wonder that they should not have
.been able to produce any correspondence, for he (Mr.
Xerrand) believed that all those private communications
thwere destroyed, and, with reference to his speaking to
e Poor•law Commissioners, he (Mr. Ferrand) believed
that Sir James Graham had never seen the whole of the
1:Poor-law Commissioners,—Sir Frankland Lewis was
e only one whom he was in the habit of seeing. Why,
swith reference to the instructions to Mr. Mott, the truth
..,eas that Sir F. Lewis had filed in the Court of Queen's
i,_ ull, in the proceedings in the criminal ihformation
aututauned against himself (Mr. Ferrand), the very in-
s ructions which he wished. This is the mode (ad-
dressing Sir James Graham) by which you have endea-
v:9ured to crush me; but I submit that my character
"all 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.
atember then went on to read to the House an affidavit
which had been made and filed by a person of whom
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
en that union ; deponent also stated that the statements
of Sir J. Graham respecting him (Mr. Ferrand) were
'false, unfounded, and calumnious, and that the statement
of him (Mr. Ferrand), with respect to Keighly Union,
were true, and that he had documents in his posse-sion
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 chafacter,
whose fair name had never beets' ttienistled by Aisho-
tour or disgrace, and who had nevet been convicted, in
that House or out of it, of falsehood. - He (Mr. Fer-
• rand) trusted, therefore; thatithe4l4:4l6, would-bear with
him whilst he attempted to exp4o, the 'exertions': which
had been made to destroy his chatacSter,fwhictt, had it
not been for the exposure which had- taken place, all
evidence taken before the Andover C. mmittee might, to
a Certain extent, have been successful, and he and his
posterity might have gone down to the grave with
is character stained, and his reputation tar-
nished by these most false and calumnious
cuarges• He would now proceed to another part of the
subject. The late Srcretary for the Home Department
had robbed Mr. Day, an Assistant Poor-law Com-
Thissioner, of his situation, to give it to Mr. Twistleton.
The lion. Member here read the communication with Mr.
---4 Y, which alleged the cause of dismissal, the necessity
7f a reduction in the number of Poor-law Commissioneris;
Jam ply to that communication, Mr. DAy wrote to S
• s Graham, but the Right Hon. Baronet declined to
Interfere, and said that he saw no reason to find fault
with the determination of the Poor-law Commissioners
lni' the selection they had made. Thus, continued
f e lion. Member, the late Secretary of State
gthe Home Department had robbed Mr. Day
?! his situation. He did interfere, and the statement
about the reduction of Poor-law Commissioners was ut-
tr.lY 1 untrue. He (Mr. Ferrand) would now ask him James Graham) if he branded Mr. Lewis with
V,,st_ hood? The Hon. Member here read the evidence
j.e.us by Mr. Lewis, Wortley, to questions from Mr.
111 tie and Mr. S. with reference to the
reduction of the Poor-law Commissioners, from which it
Ncapeared that the dismissal of Mr. Mott was influenced
give Mr.
desire to fulfil a promise given by Sir J. Graham to
that Sir J. Graham had no conG.r,.n„, w•
Mr. Twistleton a seat in the Poor-law Commission—
th the com -
n2iesioeers on that suejsen—that Me. .Levis was not
,acquainted with it until the subject was mentioned in
liankeut, and he had never seen the letter written by
'f,

Sir J. Graham till the puhlicatien of Mr. Day's pamphlet.
New. continued the Hon. Member, here (pointing to the
printed evidence) was convincing proof that Day had
been improperly deprived of his situation, and he would
ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he could net have re-
warded .I.lr. 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-
cum-eance which he would mention accompanied that
appointment. It was not 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 is, hat he supposed
to be the reason why Mr. Mott was called upon to re-
sign? What did they think was the reply? Mr. Lewis
replied that he hoped the Committee would excuse him
from anse ering the question. Would the Secretary for
the Home Department now answer it. He
(Mr.
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-
famy and disgrace. The lion. Member concluded by
neevieg 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 sled 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 netion, and has given up the question of general
police to make a personal attack on me. Mr. Speaker, I
thought, that with my retirement from the service of her
Mjesty, with my :sem) into a private station, pursuing
the strictest silence, and giving offence to no one, I
should have been spared the bitter hostility which the
Hon. Membt r for Knaresborough ehouses 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 I hope when the
Hon. Mcnaber makes accusations of high crimes
and miederneanours, the House will receive
them with some caution, and allowance. I shall
now proceed to speak of 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 Hon. 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 it 3 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 he might object; next there was Dr. Nichol,
Mr. Childers, Mr. Paekington, Mr. Trollope, Colonel
Wood, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. W. Williams, Mr.
Aldan), Mr. Grimsditch, Captain Pechell, Mr. B. Clive,
Mr. Colville, and Mr. Thomas Duncombe. 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-
ttned—a report which the Hon. Member has designated
•as a false report —as "trumped up and false."
The specific charge which the Hon. Member had made
was—first, that the rep rt of Mr. Mott was false; and,
secondly, th .t 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
Walsham'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
Walshain'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
..Sr. FERRAND—No, no; I used the term " trumped
up report."
Sir J. GRAHAM—Whether he said the report
was false, or not, is not material. Certainly, he
said that the Committee was a "packed Committee,
and, certainly, I may infer that the report, in his esti-
mation, was false. But, Sir, I have said that this was
the first charge of the Hon. Member. It was made in
1842, and the charge was to the effect that the report of
that Committee was false; and the Hon. Gentleman, who
was himsel7 a Member of that Committee, deposed to
the fact, that its report was false; and it is for the House
to determine whether the definition which the Hon.
Gentleman has given under the influence, of excited feel-
ings, is to be received as the correct one; and whether the
House will not give some confidence to a Committee consti-
tuted as this one was, especially as the Hon. Gentleman
was one of its members, and examined witnesses, and
had every opportunity of bringing forward any accusa-
tion in the presence of Mr. Mitt, but he has failed to do
so. So the matter stood from the year 1842 till the year
1844. In 1844, as he has reminded the House to-night,
at a public meeting at Leeds, in a speech which he de-
livered, he thought fit to go one step further than he had
done in 1842, as he stated that the report of Mr. Mott
was a false report, and proceeded to allege " that I, Mr.
Lewis, and the Poor-law Commissioners had conspired
together to obtain a false report, for the purpose of
crashing him." I thought it my duty,in the presence
p
of the Hon. Member, he being in his lace, to ask his
attention to an accusation so directly affecting not only
my personal honour, but the unstained purity of the
office which I then had the honour to hold
as one of her Majesty's Secretaries of State.
I denied that accusation. I asked the Hon.
Member to proceed with his charge, and I offered him
t;I) everyotuhsee
cwh opportunityaorugled hr
recollect,
co
hadl olef
cmt
adoingde
deliberately as
nodiHreotna.sMedemtober,
submitthe
himselfhis toas the
the jurisdictionfair tribonoafl thefor
investigatingllou House, an ddemurredsuch
charge,u ourefusedse. t
Io t
is sustainnpreferredow b
renewed, y h oi
sn e l.
charge,eo mrboaet
and
de against
_gga grounds;
on
us
tot fthehe wished to adhere
nt withdrewanother—heda. butf ro
st
ah
Ne.
that that accusation was unfounded and m'afg
eCheers)—and common candour would decide niannt—
favour. The lion. Member has generally referredmY
.to
other circumstances; but in. July last he
ventured, in a
more substantive form than he had previously ad,
pled,
to reiterate the charge. Ho published two letters, which
I think were addressed to the Times newspaper, con
twining in writing toe charges which he had m nel than
once orally repeated here. Mr. Lewis, acting
by advice, at once took the oainion of coun-
sel whether the letters in question were not
indictable. The Hon. Member, it I mistake not, on
a former evening said that he wrote those letters from
an eager desire to bring ;he points at issue directly to
the test ; and when he said he had that eager desire, he
stated that it was his intention, when called upon, to
have acknowledged himself as the author of those letters,
An application was at once made to him by
Mr. Lewis ; to know if he was the author of those
letters ; but what would the House think if be
informed them that th, a I weeks elapsed before any
direct answer was returned, and that Mr. Lewis was
compered to send to Yorkshire, specially and orally
to ask that question ; and when that question was put
to the llou. `lumber in Yorkshire, he declined to give
artyLodnanswer until he had an opportunity of coming to
Landon, and that it was nut
until an application
was
made personally to rim that •
he said he was the author
of them. But he did not do that until it was well known
that the Times newspaper had consented
to produce the
letters, and therefore show th
at the Hon. Member wrote
them, that he consented to acknowledge that they ori-
ginated with him,—(Cheers.)So much for his eager-
ness to bring this matter to
a test. Then Mr. Lewis,
in a court of law, proceeded
upon the Hon. Member., s hto, move for a rule, calling
information shuuld not be fit av cause why a criminal
Member eembesesi
the
making;
against him. The Hun.
the utmost possdee extent. pit et that rule absolute to
~c(urtl,, the tit-
sh..hl,l le
sant, I wined eesei •, thetuth'iut(' Aul
en
Pa"
(Mr. Ferrand) materially relied attlav"
" "Wleii
he
ker, and used in the Queen's Ber7chs "e
by Mr. Bar-
on the rule mei,
when there was no means of makin
However, that affidavit was before th6;Cany answer to it.
but my respect for the even flow of 'uosutr,and nothine
shou:d be criminal in the highest degreej ifeei
with the even current of that justice rest- -oterferEd
reading to the House the judgment re -anis me from
Justice of England, speaking on h the Lord Chief
when he decided that the. rut eehalf of the full Court,
—(Loud cheers.) I vviva ad should be made absolute.
will state to the How- • not read that judgment, but I
that I have stated -d that I have filed an affidavit--
the files of the on oath on an affidavit, which is on
or contrail: Court, and which is open to he traversed
..cte4l in any way, my most positive solemn
~ I p 'eta ans. e,,rh.prlev wh3tover
for
. ef crusilinw, lion. etlesataaa__(Loud
enears.) But, Sir, the Hon. Member says that the real
stature of the transactions between me and Mr.

Lewis will never be known. (Hear, bear.) 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. lam 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 hot. I have satisfied the House
that with respect to the transactions with Mr. Mott, I
am not prepared in the least degree to shrink, bet to
give the fullest information that may be required at the
proper time and before the proper tribunal.—(Cheers,
and " Hear, hear.") The Hon. Member said, in referring
to a letter of Mr. Lewis, "that as to Mr. Lewis—what
has become of him ?" I say Mr. Lewis has taken the
proper steps to vindicate his honour—the step that the
Hon. Gentleman most desires. The lion. Gentleman
has" appealed' to Caesar, and to Caesar he 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 thse caee 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 au 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-
neunce any opinion upon it except as regarding it as
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, 1 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 Judgmi.nt, and he was sen-
tenced to a year's iwprisonment, 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 son 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 explatiatien, 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,
fur 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 should be an opening in the
commission, that his claims should be recollected—claims
which were founded upon very pre-eminent services,
rendered under very critical and difficult circumstances.
1 o-night, for the 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,
he 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
and 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 stands.—(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. BO WRlNG—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
thatdid inquiry
ot
taken
the matter should undergo investigation. -In accordance
with that promise Mr. Mott was sent down, but he did
not conduct
he that
n
that a wt
a 3.
troublethat waswhi eitherwhich
h e
osuagt
hi st-,
factory to himself, or to his constituents. They con-
sidered
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. lie, himself, wrote a very stroeg
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
in which that inquiry was
made. He (Dr. Bearing)
that
time he was a very
warm friend of the Commissioner.—(Hear, hear.) 01
Mr. Mott he did not hear fora lung time, not until the
question of his dismissal came before the House, and
then he interpreted it as
and
antiionsequence of the complaints
which had been made,
to the dissatisfaction which
had existed from his conduct' 1n
that affair. That opi-
nion was confirmed when an
appeal was made to him,
as being cogidsant of the reasons which led to his cis-
missal.—(Bear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said that he hoped the
permit him, since he had been referred to House would
both the
Honourable Members, to touch fura et?' fe
upon the great Mutt cage, (Hear, hear,ihkiments
and laughter.)
He had not the advantage of having a previous
terence with the Ilea. Member for tiattests T.
h
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 his opinion,
was discreet. The House 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 at Elizabeth, which was once considered supreme;
but which had been subject to changn. A great retolu-
lion in their own time load been achieved
regarding that law; St was still subject to
chaege, kllt at all, events it was open to
pubic and nutte-,,a1 Cridel9lll, and political tooilifit!a-
-; ti"," —(1-tektP, hear.) It was inipo,.sible to say that the
w' re one or those upon which pubic opinion
should :0e viewed charitably, nor should the expressions
viewed public men
be • din a captious spirit. Hon. The Poor-
The Right
I Baronet
law was a question of charity.
was an influential country gentleman before he became
a Minister of the Crown, and he took up very decided_
opinions upon this very question, founded on national
and econona:cal principles. When the measure was in-
troduced, he supported it with avidity, not only
as a statesman, but as a man of a philosophical
conviction, and he was determined that the law should
be carried out when he came into office ; its all that he
saw nothing but the effects of honest and sincere con-
viction. But they should, at the same time, remember
that there were two opinions, and if the representative
of one of those was a man not brought into that House
by is eeeet paley, bus oytill s3ishpa,:iic4 ut h.s licibh-
hours, such as was the case with his Hon. Friend, whom
every bodY knew to be 'a man of earaebt 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 bkalf
The Right Hon. Gentleman's chief reason for not
answering the charge was, that he was about to appear
before a tribunal where the matter would undergo a full
investigation. He entirely agreed with him in the pro
priety of the course which he had adopted. But he
would ask the House where the question had criainated
—was it, he would ask, before the Lord Chief'Justice
of England ? The resolution was obtained by
the must powerful Minister that the country had
ever seen for a century, and who had a Mace-
donian 'phalanx, ready to vote with him when he
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
crimina's.

Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hen. Member for
Shrewsbury was one of that very Macedonian phalanx
which he had stigmatised. The question in
dispute was 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, amine contradeceinte, that it
was a false and calumnious imputation. " The Ll,m.
Member for Shrewsbury had been the close and intimate
friend of that powerful Minister to whonr he alluded,
until he saw the prospect of danger, which, when he
descried, he turned and left him to his fate.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said a great deal had been ob-
served about gentlemen of ono 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 bad but
one idea, and he thought that none were right but those
which emanated from himself. He (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 linaresh,rough had said that he had left
out one Filet of his motion. Ile (Lord John Russell)
was of opinion that if the other moiety had also been left
out, it would have been equally judicious.— (Hear, hi ar.)
The Hon Member in the motion which he has made,
takes recognisance 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, be
quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Bath, that
the question had been already disposed of, end 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 had already come to a decision on the question,
while now the Hon. 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.
C+,ode, 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 lion. Member the Under-
Secretary of State could hava acted in the manner de- ,
scribed, and still hold his seat in the House.—(Hear,
hear.) With regard to the Poor-law Commissioners,
the question they had before them to-night to consider
actedßwtai
gs 1, I
Right
1 ,Vvhi
Ise
iet
ohl
yne
or
in
ut
rh
at ehb
the
He o n
B.
:courser Membero Baronet
et h
haf
akr,
ti
na Kroghkgnean_ac
cs
ttbvehd reot
huinr hadt
thee
should(tni
oantet e; ra
nownrde flevrhhr
eeetdho to, to
charged
ght oee
dthi the
n Hon.tb best t
Member
bn henries
for
oatrvlliioi tihy:ehns
abddobelief,
wasn o
t chargesoperatingof
o n
corrupttheir forbearanceand i
mppe r
rtoo
conduct.far in ad-
vancing
Sir R. PEEL had no wish of taking a part in the
present discussion, considering that the subject was now
beforea tribunal, where h
than
tawn
beforeouldre thatceivea House.more
dispas-
sionate consideration 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 Knar, sborough. 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 Hon. Baronet had used his power for the purpose
eyrie° ioi
iareteme violated
e r ' a
of doing wrong to the lion. Member for Knaresborough.
The Hon. Member had not only preferred charges
against the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of
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 Hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg)
with having, as a member of a Committee of
the House, made a false report to that House
in order to assist 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. If Honourable Members would refer to
the records of the proceedings of the House, they would
find this to be the case ; and they. should, theFefore,
question he advised delay ; he was anxious
urges, whether
in order to test the accuracy of the c
i n
When the
the presentdiscussion
fir t g
raised
tt o cdoi
ornc
thisthmi -s
speet i proceedon .
theypeit w, ere well or ill founded. They.
opportunity ted and
mightb e agahion
given
nsefdo
for
delay,
was this—the Secretary of Sta
• him and that
of his office and trusts reposed in ,
I d de-
the fullest investigation shoutledhathd
It then became his duty, after the Hon.
e to move
i .ri
inquiry
order r
Thea thataoihna frrugelei II
So far
the resolution which was carried by
the noase..e consequence I
dined to retract or to substantiate his chargta,kthee place.o
from this resolution having been passed in coot:con
with
of any power held by him in virtue of any th
more universal consent than was that resolution. _ e
was
ewvheirc hp
passed
ed wast invested,hat ll o lis ohe w
hbieolhi believed thatbee been
ooarrrlseicidslvt resolution
ever
4111
from carrying with them any vindictive feeling,e h
suredid
notthat
wishthere
to
wbeas es under I
posed upon him. These were the circumstances
which he had been compelled to Mire st the
which had passed the House, and if the Hon. Gentleman
f using any
did intend to convey a censure against laina
way reosil"sagys he ho ed— he I
relieved
tevoende Afrloemmbteirloofretshpaotnisiihiuisiteywimho. i.
power which he possessed to his prejudice,
was sure—that the feeling of the House would
in this matter he was quite blameless. .
debate should not close without his making
been brought
observations upon the matter which had
the House,
before the House. But he would assure the Baronet
Mr. CHRISTIE said that he was anxsouosntoboart
ttlhvoe
without any affectation, that if the Right 11. resolutionsd Pb e, t hat
had not alluded to the subject have asked the i
(Mr. Christie) would not on that evening
duction of the i
indulgence of the House. On the
Pr° held with Mr. •
memorandum of conversation which was
seemed to complain
Parker, that Right Hon. Baronet
tone time as ho
that if he (Mr. Christie) had thought a
d have said what
now did think, he should at that perio
The Right ;
in the way he did, he 1
it was that evening his intention to Y_
report aai
was that he had wished to suppress tie
never thought
sense of destroying it. He (Mr. Christ
n)orm
1. the Hon.
Lion. Bart. had said that the charge
the
of making that charge. He might tat
• document he
n sitn him
Baronet that for the production 01 .
(Mr. Christie)setyit
allowed to exer-
ments relating to his case, and he e
h production of them,
Mr.wa was
Parker, alone rwe si
tpho nits irlews
reai
cise his personal discretion
lin
an,
and he would take
without consulting that geettensat 0
f wasot
hpelra placed
u in.
saying that
he (Mr. Parker) was
that opportunity
his hands by
Barfoonresthsepophroednufetmionr. of that
not in any
The Right Hon.
paper.dum of that
Mr. Parker Parker was led
an implied pledge. With regard
cation, in ofviolationnht
memorandum, he had the strongest
he conclusion that if
as
sto
memorandum from a feeling of insecurity
to make that in
his superiors • Theßight
and want of
confident exceptions to some M
Hon. Baronet had taken . of .. r.
as leading to
oangwatlnset
osfubroesrdpeinoattesof the
havingthe m
makingadoe
fat. writtena
ates, in other departments, were
'to
tr.stpithi
e:Axtot
ntiluireirli."ilecea;r:lki
"efncoirollpr.ti
;oil:
a slAt
i.
tifthuNhliibliassepsrsetaeiro:ai‘W, butt;
4.pv!nota:as:o,stio nazuherr
:vroel!
~ °)I:Ita-4si
.idwetvgthelu
tcl hadt:
s ota"rndr tightern stated
applied
lion.wouldconvictionstatements,Commissionersdepartment, and
for
that he had written
.t.:Hoee rt%-,i
aa
sw Commissionersnot anxious
to
to say, a general feelingaomi
suhJeet of Ur. Day, or of the
qwtaiesotsmofistshe hegettee
et, .
but he must say that alter
acid which had been presided
the Committee which had been appointed to examine
ihrtnaeattitiegheelitnih:deteicoaloti.vroodnuoursfceetdi‘ibittrtooo.dvmteitater'ey.nict:vtn:,
iwrintoatthheadeirfeatillmenstf:not7o3,
over by the lion. limber for 1/coal-rich (a
friend to the l'oor-law Commissioners), that
Committee had come to the conclusion, without
a division, that atter the fullest and most patient
investigation, the Poor-law Commissioners had failed
to justify their calling upon air. Day to resign.
The name of Mr. Jenkin Jones had been called up. No
one could blame the light Hon. Baronet for the manner
in which he had spoken of Jenkin Jones. The RI ,let
Hon. Baronet had 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 to a
year's imprisonment be held the office of actuary to an
insurance company. While holding that office he had
invited a committee of the directors to go into the whole
of the case, and the House was aware that these
directors were responsible to a large body of proprietors,
who looked very sharply into their proceedings. Well,
lnleatsiton investigation,
ofkeeping his office of actuary open
se from prison. They then reinstated him
the Committee came to
afterttliilol his
di
sto htree7ef fullest
iii Li. office, .tau he still occupied it, ttiid only very re-
cently he received a very handsome mark of their ap-
probation, accompanied by -Et valuable present. The

cases :

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 stereotype affair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made this reser-
vation in compliance with the conviction of the Govern-
ment. He was not going to say whether this was a wise or
unwise proceeding, but he simply wished to gather the
feelings of the House respecting the conduct of the Corn-
missioners.
Sir C. NAPIER said, that it appeared that the
reports on which the mover relied were those of the,.
Keighley Union, and he thought that in the report
which was recommenced to the House, that this report
should he 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 :Anted,
that this was a packed Committee, but ander the cir-
cumstances, he thought that no notice whatever should
he taken of the .matter.—(LauOtter.)
Mr. VILLIERS begged to correct the representation
of the lion. Member for Knaresborough. He 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 be carried out that the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough would be able to sub-
stantiate his accusations. He was not prepared to deny
that there was some room for the allegation 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 know whether this allegation of Mr. Mutt was true
or not, but this he knew, that Mr. Mott had received a
contribution of 8001. a year, and he simply wished to
know how the engagements were to he satisfied ?
Mr. FERRAND was not 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 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. lie 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 Hon. 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 he was about to make for a
return of the punishments which had taken place in the
navy 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 pubiish 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. He
trusted that, under these circumstances, his Hon. 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 lion. 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
sqheua
Niv:etoeudc
considered
joadnveere
ebvdiede evidence
tc sufficient,oe w h ic
moveh
and
thoseon rd t
hh ee
Mr. WILLIAMS said he was quite ready to give his
mt‘Svhthii:ourlgft:rleiirsteddtohhf heati dbhmeabstemt eciulosuat
evidence.
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 last year. This was owing to no
change in the opinions of the officers, but to public
opinion being brought to bear upon the subject. He
believed the House would be doing a great
injury in bringing all the evidence in this
matter before the House at press nt.—(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 course
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
v ssel with a boisterous or mutinous crew, and having no
amenable to rtimepHittftuhaho
pcnaa
anr
odi
Member
lheaen
hmebcer.engwrce
amwAt
insubordinateni
means of punishment at his command. He (Lord
t
Ingestrie) had- commanded several of her Majesty's
vessels, and 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 euty 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
would recommend to the Hon. Member to take a cruise
for eighteen months. or a couple of years, in one of her
pe , n andte m thean below
eml
00, amount n
ht ofm
hiselofif aPljvoueepsnaititynsi seomrnvseoe nsrustPnol vessels,
hwteh e subject.
the number rndisceeatsniedidroenof boardthe Hthoons.hGi
r.
ihinEoefin should be postponed, he had no objection
pibmrUeelsttent to acquiesce in their desire.
punishmenteft
reaM trt t tel oer
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
NAVIGATION LAWS.
Mr. HUME 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 severa,
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.

PETITIONS ON PRIVATE BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner SMITH and Mr. Assistant-
Examiner FRERE.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
The formal proofs were completed in the following

Ipswich and Bury St. Edmunds Railway (No. 2), Extension
from Bury St. Edmunds to Newmarket and El
Huddersfield and Manchester Railway, braniTh. from Old-
ham to Ashton and Guide-bridge.
London and North-Western Raillway,.Lease and Purchase
of the Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal and
the Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester Railway.
Ashton Gas Amendment.
Birkenhead Improvement (Gas Works), with power to
purchase the Birkenhead and Claughton Gas Works.
West Cornwall Railway, branches to St. Ives, Norwayman'a
Wharf,
and construction and enlargement of quays at Hayle.
Charing-cross- bridge, hitherto the Hungerford and Lam-
beth Suspension Foot-bridge.
Manchester and Salford Waterworks Acts Amendment, Ex-
tension of Works, with powers of sale or lease to the corpo-
ration of Manchester.
Southampton and Dorchester Railway Acts Amendment
(Weytnouth Branandch ).
Southampton Dorchester Railway (New Forest De-
viation and Branches).
OPPOSED LIST.
EASTERN UNION RAILWAY (BRANCH FROM
MANNINGTREE TO HARWICH.)
In this case the opposition was withdrawn, and the cue-
omary formal proofs were put in.
OPPOSED LIST.
AND FORD
SOUTHAMPTON AND DORCHESTER RAILWAY
(BL BRANCH).
This petition was opposed.
(Room 23, before Mr. Examiner MAY and Mr. Assistant-
Examiner GUNNELL.)
UNorPOSED I.IsT.
The following cases being unopposed, the customary
formal proofs were completed :
Westminster Improvements.
Deviations at Skipton, Casterton,
North-Western Railway
and Sedbergh.
rovements, Waterworks, and Purchase of
Birkenhead Imp
the Birkenhead and Claughton Waterworks.
Manchester and Leeds Railway, Alteration of Levels of
the Brighouse branch of the West Union Railways,
and new line into Leeds.
Huddersfield and Manchester Railway, 'Deviations and Al-
tetions i Oldham Branch Extension to Manchester,
through Men dlock Valley, and Branch from Oldham to the
Extension Line.
Stourbridge Rates.
ADJOURNED CASE.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (No. 2).
This case was then resumed, and occupied the rest of the
day. The Examiner said that an allegation as to the
accuracy of the sectional figures which he had received was
,sustained by the evidence. No oche; allegation of any im-
portance was sustained to-day.