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

I

Dead
the Railway Board opporturd.y of maltinr
▪ zi i:,11 I:nt,
▪ char;, against three of the Government d part-
Tents which he ought to be well prepared to justify.
the statements that the railway commissioners
re
~quired bridges of ur_necess fry span, he w-fild reply
10 the railway commissioners has; never interferedd
6t tequired bridges `of' *extraordinary span, or, in-
or* Vans of any kiriti.wilich would involve danger t 2
~,,eeA4l°irY • and he <afely :534 that, ,s far as the
••uto ta• • ' •
issioners of were c .ne.-rued, there was
112 roundation for tile bfatetmlit that appe :red in the
rblic prints. With respect to the It tter said to be a ;-
ealk'd to Lord Dalhousie, he had made it his duty to
:Mine into the correspondence of the railway depart-
_lit of the Board of trade, and it was perfectly true
me
,Int he found that a letter had been addressed to Lord
Zlh°uffie on the subject of bridges by Mr. Locke, but
1)-`2t letter had no reference to bridges crossing rivers,
tr Was rather intended to refer to a clause in
ae? Railways Consolidation Act, and intended
Z43' to apply to bridges crossing public roads. With
Peet to the Board of Admiralty, the House was doubt-
aware of the extreme responsibility which attached to
7' functions of that department, and the necessity which
1431ted that they should watch with a jealous eye any en
erlriftehrnent upon the navigation of the country. He
h:viild not, however, say any more upon the point, as
Ing Mentioned the matter to the lion. the Secretary
ri`ae Admiralty, he was fully prepart d to give an an-
R▪ er to the questions of the Hon. Member.
}at G. CLERK corroborated the statement of the
ttrt nou. Gentleman with respect to the letter addres-
to to Lord Dalhousie. That letter had reference only
zo. %welter of the Railways Consolidated Act, and he
against Mr. Locke, or any other engineer,
saYieg that the safety of the public was endangered by
e.Proceedings of any of the Government departments.
gtl.te a few words of explanation from Mr. GOUL-
N,
ttle subject dropped.
CORN-LAWS.
tolf-r• BANKES wished to put a question to the Noble
rd at the head of the Government with reference to
l:nalotion for leave to introduce a Bill to suspend for a
the
Period than at present enacted, the duty on corn;
the night was so far advanced that it was not likely
ht be
Lord would introduce his Bill, perhaps it
i:amt be as well if he stated to the House what
was his intention to do ? He bad also
Petition to present upon a subject of great
;Penance to the working classes, and which was well
lee sale
the attention of Parliament. It was the subject of
leilaie of bread. He wished to know whether Government
*I, token this subject into its serious consideration, and
kwether it was proposed by Government to review those
hut:which referred to the subject, as showing the fluc-
,
ie„,"2lle that had taken place in the price of grain dur-
fe;t:e last ten months. The public had greatly suffered
of the want of proper control in the prices and weight
bread.
.r
ku„.4"rd JOHN RUSSELL—I find that it will be neces-
ii'' in point of form, that I should make the motion of
401:1' I have given notice in a Committee of the whole
'e• I shall not, therefore, be able to bring it on till
th:44,lltiaY or Friday next. What I mean to propose is,
he the duties on the importation of foreign corn should
ben
till the Ist of March next.—(Hear, hear.)
en the Hon. Gentleman said he wished to ask me
Meth
Ber question, I thought he meant to make some
_ 'll4l with respect to an Act which once passed this
and enacted that the sale of bread should not be
e'reitted till a certain time after it is baked. The
v-et has been under the consideration of the Govern.
-41 tit
it 4 ,ut we do not think it practicable to enforce such
• "i• I am convinced that very great waste takes
h• from the consumption of new bread before a cer-
. number of hours have elapsed after it has been
14edtt,rtn,But we do not think it desirable to introduce
Thy ~..711 which it would not be practicable to enforce.
ten son• Gentleman asks whether the Government in.
in " be propose an assize of bread; we do not mean to
`counee any measure on that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
se tore AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.
mei - JOHN RUSSELL said the motion of his Hon.
of Pd the Member for Montrose, relating to the affairs
(Lerae urtyugal, stood on the paper for Thursday, but he
the re" • Russell) thought it would be more desirable if
tver:l)tion was not brought on till Friday, for although
ltas;/, exPedition had been used, it would be utterly
t 0
)4
to get the papers ready and have them in
)4 Inds of Hon. Members till to-morrow evening.
teeutr* RIME would readily consent to the postpone-
of,.e the motion till Friday.
tliel,„ 0"4 JOHN RUSSELL said, in these circumstances,
kir would take the adjourned debate on the Prisons
e.On Thursday.
*heV't• PECHELL said, Thursday being disposed of,
was to become of the Poor-law Administration
towhich stood felt that day.
%JIM RUSSELL said he could not answer
question at present.
lierl'etiE LATE SIR EARDLEY WILMOT.
setui;,—.l,lot RSMAN said a remarkable statement was
night, during the debate on the dismissal of
IlartZ Sir Eardley Wilmot, to the effect that certain
Ititte'rAlnade a statement to the Colonial office with re-
t'Poneathe then absent Governor of Van Diemen's Land,
eteptu-uieh statement he was suspended from the public
ute!.ttleat, but which had since been discovered to be
qeetiemged- Now, he wished to ask the Right Hon.
Whe,l'inah, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, first,
Itna,.!" the statement having been made, not merely
• rumour, but in such a manner as to make it
url:official Government had ascertained the names
ee'ae public servants, against whom this gross miscon-
art was alleged ; secondly, whether Government had
!.tertnined to call upon them to explain ; and, thirdly,
nether, in the result of that explanation would depend
leek continuance in the public service.
Mr. HAWES could only state what he said last night;
!tamely, that the Colonial-office had no official record of
‘rlY statements made against Sir Eardley Wilmot.
iie/fdr. B. ESCOTT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
eau whether the Colonial-office was in possession of
rr,,,eames of the persons who gave the information upon
~s;lch the late Secretary of the Colonies thought fit to
and which information formed the foundation of a
.ent dispatch, dated the 13th of April 1846 ?
411.* RAWES had already stated that the Colonial-
e4 had no official record upon the subject.
xr
Ilit:r• B. ESCOTT wished to ask the Right Hon.
stiii?eet, the Member for Dorchester, whether, after the
Wit men" he made last night, he would feel it consistent
*a- his duty to inform the House who that person
1/44 holding a high responsible situation, who gave this
givn information to Mr. Gladstone ? or, if he could not
tret-eleat information, perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet
JAMES the reason' s why he could not do so ?
r "AMES GRAHAM would be most happy to
Nies'ial the Hon. Gentleman. He had furnished the
Ise cis of the gentlemen to the present Government, but
l'he's; net feel justified in mentioning them to the House.
leee. Zre. Gentleman called upon him to give his reasons
bieCthholding the names, but he del not think the
Gentleman had a right to call upon him to do so.
porn he would satisfy the Hon. Gentleman upon that
the Re considered it would not 1:e acting fairly with
thlSentlernen in question to disclose their names, when
(trtiutlugh their being at great a distance from this
lieretrY, twelve months must elapse before they would
thes„LPY opoortunity of giving any explanation upon
TOPets—(Hear, hear.)
Atre subject then dropped.
hew ' FIUME asked the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
esipilff the Railway Commission, whether the House
ihr,„st expect any report as to the real valises of the ne-
tt"' Oh the Shrewsbury and Chester Rtilway.
deb!' STRUTT said two gentlemen had been sent
raid to investigate the matter, and their report would,
before the House in a few days.
THE CASE OF MR. DREW.
tl ,W. MOLES WORTH presented a petition,
trued by seventy-seven commissioners of the late Court
quests, praying the House to take into consider°.
°n the case of Mr. Drew.
Itieir F. THESIGER then called the attention of. the
• "tthe to the petition of Mr. George Drew (presented
Lth May), and moved that a copy of a letter from the
aeeretary of State for the Heine Department, appravine
tit' the appointment of Mr. Drew to be Assessor of the
%A outhwark and Brixton Court of Requests, under the
vl'et Band 9 Vic. C. 127, be laid upon the table of the
Alr.euse. Mr. Drew, the Hon. and Learned Member sta-
.', was a solicitor of high standing, and up to the
abolition of the Court he held the office of clerk to the
"cuthwark Court of Requests, with a salary of 500/. a
Lo, but for the convenience of the public he was subse-
u—entlY appointed by the Commissioner to the office of
lieleesor of the Southwark and Brixton Court of
thucitate. The Small D.bts Act, however, had abolished
Ouice without making any provision to compensate
r•
Dbrew for his loss, upon the understanding that Mr.
r,,,ew Would be appointed to a judgship of one of the
h- courts to be established by the Act, or at least that
tinuld have a paramount claim to the office. Indeed
tlini-Tgo was given to that effect by the Right Hon. Gen-
tle --.4 the Secretary of State for the home Department.
"d°ll,l.ld ask whether Mr. Drew, or any of his friends,
have the smallest doubt but that his appointment
`axe place? When the Act passed, he presented
4Petition to the Lord Chancellor, praying that he should
kueaPPointed to one of those new courts. Mr. Drew
poi! nothing whatever of his hopes having been disap-
thaftd, till he received a letter from Mr. Clive, stating
9.hiti,rr :as appointed to the judgeship of the County
Southwark. He would venture to say that Mr.
the e had had no experience in the business relating to
PuhintY courts, and the consequence was, that
had
had 'cc were deprived of the services of a person whod ta
tiodu
.;:tissiisdteinra.gboler experience in the matter. A epu a-
lxmautitinerous _ .
the two Hon. Members for Southwark,
o her distinguished gentlemen had waited
Drew tt(7:l7irard Chancellor to represent the case of Mr.
ettsaet,e, it
and Lea • The statement was made to the Noble
rned
- • et Lord by the deputation. His Lord-
was a very bad case, but that
hriattaself. mra.spbrreought about b the Lord Chancellor
however ,t the appoint-
deueV one the jOvinat'cleorwkesvoef the Court. This he
,olded tr,
accept,
ty whhei
efthre t rolag'rE:ll ground that t.) accept the ,;ffic-
e movement from the position in so-
• th he previously occupied. Now, it so hap-
.rearnwortaht when his Right Hun. Friend the Member for
was at the bead of the. Government, feeling a
biO4 respect for the talents and abilities of tine Lord
4,11.11(1
iie,'llor, he off Ted him one of the new Vice- Chancel lor-
41Ps that Was then just issued. This offer was laughed
.‘„ 'leen% by Oe Noh;e Lord now at the head of the Go
thrikt:nleneat. Tiee case of Mr. Drew was altno,t to
eitB; 010 Lord Chancellor, except that in the former
h "would, instead of occupyiog a position a 4 Judge,
*3llld
t 0,,.. have to )141 a situation as a mere clerk to
.the
Q"-t, It had Leese said that the reason for not appoint.
r. Drew, was because he was a solicitor. This
rarely not be any ground of objection, because

sevpral rolicitors had been appointed to the JudgP-
, 1:1,y i_Tuon what Rrf.tmil.

• Ir•-.C.2iVt. the appoiathirot
in que.tien ? ;le had givcit op tel which he held
for life., and also his private praetico, on the faith of the
representetien of the c-ininaissioners. There was no
person more adapted to till the office of judgo than Mr.
Drew was. -Unless soma explanation were made of
which he was not aware, he must say that he was of opi-
nion that a more crud case had not come under his notice
or the notice tif the House. He begged, therefore, to
move to,t 7. copy of a friter from the Seere,ary of Stele
for the /lonic Department, approvine of the appointment.
Drev, te he the As..u,sor of the Southwark and
Brix! al Court of Requests, under the Act 8 and 9 Vic.,
c. 127.. be laid upon the tal)L. of the House.
Sir G. GREY had no objection to the production td
the letter in question. lie must say that he was rather
surprised at the mode in which the Hon. Member
had brought forward his motion. The petition of Mr.
Drew was one which he was also surprised to find the
Hon. and Learned Member supporting its allegations.
Mr. Drew, so far from having a right to the situation
under the Bill, brought in by the Government, he was
by that Bill entirely precluded from holding the office of
judge of the county court, to be established under that
Act, as that Act expressly precluded any person from
holding office, under the Act. who had not held offici,
prior to lit day of June, Mr. Drew having been ap-
pointed to the office of assessor of the court in the month
of July. lie utterly denied, also, that any pledge was
given by the House in the course of the
discussion, that the holders of office, in these
courts, should be appointed under the new Act.
He thought he had, therefore, shown that Mr. Drew's
office gave him no shadow of a claim to be appointed to
the judgeship. Whether he was or was not competent
was a question which did not come within his province
but in that of the Lord Chancellor, and it should also
be borne in mind that he was simply clerk of a court
with a 51. jurisdiction, whereas the Bill extended the
jurisdiction to 201. There were two senior clerks over
him, so that he was not so much entitled to the office as
the Learned Gentleman seemed to suppose.
Mr. GOULBURN asked; if the fact that, no reply
was returned to Mr. Drew's memorial, was not sufficient to
create the belief that he should be continued in the office
he had held? At any rate, the discussion would have the
effect of clearing a gentleman of considerable experience
and respectability from the imputations which had been
cast upon him. It was an unfortunate case, and he
trusted that he might at some time be selected to some
other office.

Sir F. THESIGER complained that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had not replied to that portion of his speech
on which he most relied, namely, that Mr. Drew had
held the office of Judge of the Court, on the 21st of
August, 1846. Surely the Right Hon. Gentleman would
not deny that ? and he (Sir F. Thesiger) conten led,
that it was the intention of the Legislature, that O,
Judgcs of the Old Courts should have a prior claim to
the Judgeships of the New Courts. Mr. Drew was ap-
pointed to the office he had held but a short time
before the New Act was passed ; and when
the depuation waited upon the Lord i.lhancellor on the
subject ; he expressed his opinion that his case was a
" hard one." He should, however, know from the
statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman what course he
should pursue in any future proceedings that might be
taken. •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said no pledge was
given that the Judges of the Old Courts should be pre.-
ferred ; it was simply stated that their cases would be
considered ; and when the Bill was before the House,
he expressly pointed out that but sixty Judges woull
be appointed, and that the whole of the eighty Judges
of the Old Courts could not expect to be re-appointed.
Sir F. THESIGER denied that he bad ever said that
the 01 Judges possessed a vested right to be re-ap-
pointed.
The ATTORNEY-GENER AL said the whole founda
tion of Mr. Drew's ciann was this, that be was deputy
clerk of the Southwark Court. and that he was ap-
pointed an assessor when the Bill was introduced into
the House. Applications of this kind were expressly
considered when the Bill was before the Houv, and the
measure altered to obviate it ; but if they had said that.
all persons who, on the first of June, held office were to
be appointed, he might have had a right. But if the
Act had been passed in its original form, Mr. Drew would
have had no claim whatever, and his case had been con-
sidered, but he had not been appointed. Attorneys had
been appointed to the judgeship at Brighton, Halifax,
and other places, but there was no reason because a per-
son was an assessor that he should be appointed. The
Lord Chancellor had hundreds of applications for offices.
and it was frequently the case for him to return no
answer until the offices sought for were filled up ; and
there were_persons.quite. as high Its Mr. Drew, And of
undoubted talent and honour, who had received no reply
from the Lord Chancellor. He did not think that
.he
should have departed from his ordinary course for the
purpose of obliging Mr. Drew, it might be a
hard case for Mr. Drew, but he must be permitted
to say that it was an extraordinary case. He had given
up the office of clerk because it would unqualify him,
but it was a lucrative office, as the emoluments were
from 5001, to 600/. a year. He had chosen to resign
that office, and had brought his misfortune upon himself,
but he had no claim whatever to the office of judge.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Attorney-General had informed him, in reply to a
question, that the old Judges might take offices under
the Bill if they chose, but as only sixty would be re-
quired, twenty must, as a matter of course, be disap-
pointed. Then Mr. Clive had not filled the office of
judge—he was not one of the eighty, and Mr. Drew
and Mr. Guest, of Birmingham, were equally unfortu-
nate.

The motion was then agreed to.
REPEAL OF THE DISCRIMINATING DUTIES

ON UNREFINED SUGAR.

Mr. MOFFAT rose to bring in a Bill for the repeal
of the discriminating duties on unrefined sugar. He de-
sired, also, that the further privilege should be accorded
to the distillers of rectifying spirits in bond.
An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted,
when there were only twenty-nine members present,
and the House accordingly adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

From the Votes and Proceedingv of the House of Commons.)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
The following Resolutions were reported from the above
Committee
1. That in the case of the Midland Railway (Worcester,
Hereford, Malvern, and Cheltenham Lines) petition, the
standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
2. That in the case of the Liverpool, Manchester, and
Newcastle. upon-Tyne Junction Railway (Burnley Branch)
Bill ( Blackburn, &c.) petition, for additiodal provision, the.
standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
3. That in the case of the Liverpool, Manchester, and
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Junction Railway (Burnley Branch)
Bill (Fleetwood, &c.) petition, for additional provision, the
standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
4. That in the case of the Fleetwood, Preston, and West
Riding Junction Railway (Burnley and Colliery Branches)
Bill, petition for additional provision, the standing orders
ought not to be dispensed with.
5. That in the case of the York and North Midland Railway
(Harrogate Branch, Boroughbridge, and Knaresborough Ex-
temion) Bill, special report from the Committee on the Bill,
the standing orders ought to be dispensed with, and that
the Committee on the Bill be permitted to introduce the ad-
ditional prevision, if they shall think fit.
Filth resolution agreed to.—Report to lie on the table.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proeeedings of the House of Cornou,ni,

TUESDAY, JUNE 8,

COVENTRY, BANBURY, AND OXFORD JUNCTION

RAILWAY BILL.

Report considered ; Amendments agreed to as far as Clauie
20 of the printed Bill (Gauge of Railway); Clause 20:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House
doth agree with the Committee in the said Amendment."
The House divided :

MAJORITY—AYES, 105.
Acland, Sir T. Greene, Thomas Owen, Sir J.
Al.lam, W. Gregory ,W. H.
Antrobus, Edmund Hallyburton, Lord Pechell, Captain
Plumritige, Captain
Baine, Walter Hamner, Sir John Price, Sir Robert
Barron, Sir H. W. Harcourt, G. Rendlesham, Lord
Bellew, a. M. Hawes, B. Repton, G. W. J.
Berkeley, Craven Holland, Robert Round, J.
Berkeley, Grantley Howard, P. H. Russell, Lord C.
Blackstone, W. S. Hume, Joseph Russell, C.
Bodkin, William 11. Inglis, Sir It. Seynaer, H. K.
Boh4ero, 11. G. James, William Shaw, Rt. Hon. F.
llowrine, Dr. Kemble, H. Sheppard, T.
Boyd, John Langston, J. H. Shirley, E. J.
Burke, T. J. Lawless, Cecil Smith, Vernon
Butler, P. S. Layard, Major Somerset, Lard G.
Carew, W. H. Pole Lindsay, Colonel Somerville. Sir W.
Christie, W. D. Lydon, Gen. Spooner, Richard
Codrington, Sir W. Macnamara, Major Stansfield, W. It.
Cole, Hon. H. A. M`Carthy, Alex. Stanton, W. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. M`Taggart, Sir J. Stuart, Lord J.
Collett, John Martin, C. W. Strickland, Sir G.
Corbaily, M. E. Masterman, John Talbot, C. It.
Cripps, W. Miles, Philip W. S. Thornely, Thomas
Divett, E. Miles, William Trelawny, J. S.
Duncan, George Mitcalfe, H. Trevor, J. R.
Duncombe, 0. Molesworth, Sir W. Turner, E.
Vvian, J. H.
Ellice, Edward Morgan, 0.
Ellice, E., jun. Morris, David Vivian, J. E.
Waddington,-11. S.
Escott, Bickham Morrison, James
Warburton, Henry
Esmonde, Sir T. Neeld, John
Estcourt, T. G. Nicholl, J. Wawn, J. T.
Winnington, Sir T.
Forbes, William • O'Brien, C.
Worcester, Marquis
Forster, Matthew O'Brien, J.
TELLERS.
Fuller, A. E. O'Connell, M. J.
Gill, Thomas O'Ferrall, R. M. Dennistoun, J.
Goring, Charles Ogle, S. C. Willisuns, W.

MINORITY—NOES, 70.
Adderley, C. 13. Evans, William Marshall, William
Anson, Colonel Feilden, Sir W. Mettle, Fox
Austen, Colonel Ferguson, Sir R. Mostyn, E.
Bankes, George French, F. Oswald, Alexander
Barnard, Edward G. Frewen, C. H. Palmer, R.
Beckett, W. Gisborne, Thomas Patten, J. W.
Bretherton, J. Godson, Richard Pattison, Jatnes
Brown, W. Grogan, Edward Peel, Jonathan
Burrell, Sir C. Hectic, Archibald Philips, Mark
Callaghan, D. Heathcote, G. J. Russell, Lord J.
Carnegie, Captain Ileathcote, Sir W. Scott, Robert
Chaplin, W. J. Holmes, W. A'C. Sotheron, T. H.
Clerk Sir G. Herlihy, John Stanley, W. 0.
Clifton, J. T. Houldsworth, T. Strutt, Edward
Collett, W. It. Howard, C. W.G. Thesiger, Sir F.
Collins, William Hudson, G. Trollope, Sir J.
Copeland, Alderman Hughes, W. B. Vernon, G. 11.
Dickinson, F. IL Ilumphery, Ald. Walker, Richard
Dodd, G. Jervis, Sir John Walsh, Sir J. '
Douglas, Sir H. Johnstone, Sir J. Wrightson, W. B.
Dug,tale, W. S. Johnstone, Hope
Duncombe, T. JoWife, Sir W. H.
East, Sir J. B. Lowther, Hon. Col.
Egerton, Sir P. Mackenzie, T.
Eutwisle, W. Mangles, it. 1)

TELLERS.
Douglas, Sir C.
Hodgson, Richard

GaousE.—We understand that the prospects of a
good season, as respects game, are very good. In the
parish of Moy the numbrr of eggs is supposed to be
above the average ; and among the old birds no disease
has been observrd. In fact, they are freer from disease
than they have been for the last thre-, years. Should
the weather continue favourable the highwst anticipation
way be indulged in. At the oat-sowing .eason the
grouse, in the same pari,h, perseveringly followed the
sowers, picking up the corn ; and for a year or two past
they have puitclu regular appearance, following the
reaper's at the hamlet sessuar—lnvernere Courier.