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

ik" nf the -;rd s onn'Triiri vof mnicsll'

~r..

Mr 6 kliU 1 i salti iliat li. Lue;:e b;.ought a
serious charge aqainst three of the Government dep3rt-
Inents which he 'ought to be well prepared to justify.
To the statements that the railway cornmissiomrs
required bridges of unnecessary span, he would rep'y
that the railway commissioners had never interfere]
with or required bridges of evraordinary span, or. in-
. deed, spans of any kind which would involve danger to
the country ; and he might safely say that, far as the
commissioners of radway, were concerned, there v‘,s
11° foundation for tne statement that appeared in the
Public prints. With respect to the letter said to be ad-
dressed to Lord Dalhousie, hr had made it his duty to
examine into the correspondence of the railway depart-
'tent of the Board of Trade, and it was perfectly true
that he found that a letter had been undressed to Lord
Dalhousie on the subject of bridges by Mr. Locke, but
4lt letter had no reference to bridges crossing rivers,
but was rather intended to refer to a clause in
the Railways Consolidation Act, and intended j

ZilY to aPpIY to bridges crossing pulic roads. WI
sPtet to the Board of Admiralty, theb House was doub
lesr

the functions
of the extreme responsibility,which attached s
functions of that department, and the necessity which
eZieted that they should watch with a jealous eye any en
ehnient upon the navigation of the country. He
L.,tild not, however, say any more upon the point, as
!""ing mentioned the matter to the Hon. the Secretary
o the Admiralty, he was fully prepared to give an an-
'Wet to the questions of the Hon. Member.
itiSir G. CLERK corroborated the statement of' the
'
ght
e„ -ore Gentleman with respect to the letter attires-
to Lord Dalhousie. That letter had reference only
Pra clause of the Railways Consolidated Act, and he
etested against Mr. Locke, or any other engineer,
tiiYing that the safety of the public was endangered by
e Proceedings of any of the Government departments.
ir„AltftisTer, a few words of explanation from Mr. GOUL-
u
The subject dropped.
CORN-LAWS.
• toat BANKES wished to put a question to the Noble
h. rd at the head of the Government with reference to
motion for leave to introduce a Bill to suspend for a
aTger period than at present enacted, the duty on corn;
th night was so far advanced that it was not likely
)2 Noble Lord would introduce his Bill, perhaps it
lught 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
Leahy
to the working classes, and which was well
• th°rthY the attention of Parliament. It was the subject of
had eattleof bread. He wished to know whether Government
,taken this subject into its serious consideration, and
171:tiler it was proposed by Government to review those
Which referred to the subject, as showing the fille-
t/I'3ns that had taken place in the price of grain dur-
t! the last ten months. The public bad greatly suffered
• ofI?' the want of proper control in the prices and weight
rem)
te„.1411 JOHN RUSSELL--I find that it will be neces-
" ' in point of form, that I should make the motion of
I have given notice in a Committee of the whole
(ten.
lba I shall not, therefore, be able to bring it on till
elm
thitt
the duties on the importation of foreign corn should
ItiellisPended till the Ist of March next.—(Hear, hear.)
ell the Hon. Gentleman said he wished to ask me
Other question, I thought he meant to make some
illuirY with respect to an Act which once passed this
pekse• and enacted that the sale of bread should not be
sZitted till a certain time after it is baked. The
• Ject has been under the consideration of the Govern-
ka
•nt but we do not think it practicable to enforce such
Dien et• I am convinced that very great waste takes
tv-e from the consumption of new bread before a cer-
n number of hours have elapsed after it has been
htit- ed* But we do not think it desirable to introduce
T 43• Bill which it would not be practicable to enforce.
tetidell°n• Gentleman asks whether the Government in-
-14;04t4 propose an assize of bread; we do not mean to
uce any measure on that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Lel„3 AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.
iir JOHN RUSSELL said the motion of his Hon.
ll au the Member for Montrose, relating to the affairs
(Lee gal, stood on the paper for Thursday, but he
the u• Russell) thought it would be more desirable if
Neetn(nian was not brought on till Friday, for although
144444,Pedition. had been used, it would be utterly
the h .ulo to get the papers ready and have them in
ttran,lB,,ol Hon. Members till to-morrow evening.
teellt 'LLI ME would readily consent to the postpone-
,- te of the motion till Friday.
tetherrec,l JOHN RUSSELL said, in these circumstances,
-auld take the adjourned debate on the Prisons
°n Thurschly.
PECHELL said, Thursday being disposed of,
441 Was .to become of the Poor-law Administration
t:owrhich stood for that day.
1144 (el JOHN RUSSELL said he coup not answer
question at present. •
AIII,E LATE SIR EARDLEY WILMOT.
_Jk""4IeI,;',"RSMAN said a remarkable statement was
74,„_etlittfil'night, during the debate on the dismissal of
Sir Eardley Wilmot, to the effect that certain
• titotintde a statement to the Colon'al office with re-
:Pea the then absent Governor of Van Diemen's Land,
,tsloye,7ll statement he was suspended from the public
tilde'o7o- ilt, but which had since been discovered to be
ZelitleZu- Now, he wished to ask the Right Hon.
wheth -64; the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, first,
tip%
per the statement having been made, not merel~miy
Lutinur, but in such a manner as to make it
Of th.°Fneial, Government had ascertained the names
410„.6 Public servants, against whom this gross miscon-
(hie' Was alleged ,• secondly, whether Government had
vthe,r,lnined to call upon them to explain ; and, thirdly,
.i.ner, in the result of that explanation would depend
-'air, continuance in the public service.
`rAir. HAWES could only state what he said last night;
"ely, that the Colonial-office had no official record of
statements made against Sir Eardley Wilmot.
,efittr. B. ESCOTT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
'man whether the Colonial-office was in possession of
*_names of the persons who gave the information upon
teetea the late Secretary of the Colonies thought fit to
and which informa'ion formed the foundation of a
net stspatch, dated the 13th of April 1846 ?
OfCittAIVES had already stated that the Colonial.
itload no official record upon the subject.
1140,;• ESCOTT wished to ask the Right Hon.
tate;et, the Member for Dorchester, whether,. after the
Ititli-ee•lit he made last night, he would feel it consistent
Vs duty to inform the House who that person
falseiliding a high responsible situation, who gave this
Rive ;11,.Lortnation to Mr. Gladstone ? or, if he could not
*otdrat information, perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet
Bit:tate the reason' s why he could not do so ?
!etlith.l'A-,_MES GRAHAM would be most happy to
41kate'r tua Hon. Gentleman. He had furnished the
he A.' (31. th •
e gentlemen to the present Government, but
iege rten' feel justified in mentionii?g their! tohthe House.
ht with • Gentleman called upon him to give is reasons
tap.
he
the names,. but he did not think the
t:II, he "email had a right to call upon him to do so.
lat. „Would satisfy the Hon. Gentleman upon that
titerogefreltrenle econ nnisidered it would not he acting fairly with
question to disclose their names, when
illotultr their being at great a distance from this
at twelve months must elapse before they would
"e sem Y oPnortunity of giving any explanation upon
,_t
The 's„ebk.,-(Hear, hear.)
-'"Ject then dropped.
m
- -4-E asked the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
kb, t
cl,ht h 0 Railway Commission, whether the House
dFtito--ePe.,ct any report as to the real causes of the ac.
sne Shrewsbury and Chester Railway.
Frrla
,said two gentlemen had been sent
*1 ienivestigate the matter, and their report would,
yfore the House in a few days.
THE CASE OF MR. DREW.
Of~▪
edkw• MOLESWORTH presented a petition,
I seventy-seven commissioners of the late Court
410 e teests, praying the House to take into considera•
Sirte, case of Mr. Drew.
110 t TRESIGER then called the attention of the
ot Al to the petition of Mr. George Drew (presented
sure a3'), and moved that a copy of a letter from the
tit ,k-‘4r of State for the Home Department, approving
the appointorent of Mr. Drew to be Assessor of the
Attinwark and Brixton Court of Requests, under the
,4 and 9 Vic. c. 127, be laid upon the table of the
ifick(l"". Mr. Drew, the Hon. and Learned Member sts-
kboll,was a solicitor of high standing, and up to the
k0u71,4011 of the Court he held the office of clerk to the
Yeipvark Court of Requests, with a salary of 500/. a
tthut for the convenience of the public he was subse-
hltee,,,Y appointed by the Commissioner to the office of
t• itCr of the Southwark and Brixton Court of'
~'ett %re- The Small Debts Act, however, had abolished
• bree Without making any provision to compensate
"row ev? for his loss, upon the understanding that Mr.
tete eolvoUld he appointed to a judgship of one of the
Wo 448 to be established by the Act, or at least that
41)1 Ulti
11edits ve paramount claim to the office. Indeed
01141 0,58 given to that effect by the Right Hon. Gen-
v.% teoui;ie Secretary of State for the Home Department.
eptltdd h ask whether Mr. Drew, or any of his friends,
044 ale the smallest doubt but that his appointment
it kr talto Place? When the Act passed, he presented
k ttppe. Lo the Lord Chancellor, praying that he should
eointe,d to one of those new cour.ts. Drew
4tee 1111 g whatever of his hopes having been disap
at h©' he received a letter from Mr. Clive, stating
chfltit-t,etlWo6',.4„aPPOillted to the judgeship of the County
the He would venture to say that A
ppeVonetvad no experience in the business relating
the
•1a " eQurts, and the consequence was, that
ea were de„
16.7 aOnaid rived of the services of a person who had
Itqqa "tl4iste:nra.-`4_?. experience in the matter. A deputa-
dp tiuto,ro'„,: the two Hon. Members for Southwark,
r:11 the Lomrr distinguished gentlemen had
ofwai_t_erd
ttoalf,to hitt_ yLancellor to represent the caseM
Ili' Lear/led Lae statement was made to the Noble
he tt Lear/led
• Lot statement
by the deputation. His Lord-
but that
Lord-
hi Case, was 1: was a very bad case,
tte,-``'f• ejellght about by the Lord Chancellor
At of one • "'revs' was, however, offered the appoinnte-
:tem of the joint clerks of the Court. This
office
he'v_r-eePt. on the ground that te accept the.so.
tZtY t' '"grade movement from the position in
tko, th a he previously occupied. Now, it so hap-
tel at When .
it)
ugh tee
his Bight Hon. Friend the Member for
ree, Was at the head of the Government, feeling
Lord
41.40ee11r7t for the talents and abilities of toe
tolPa that', heoffered him one of the new Vice-Chancellor-
pernseepil qtash then just issued. This offer was laughed
thit ratnt• e Noble Lord now at the head of the Go
er the The case of Mr. Drew was almost similar to
IZ4lte wo_fidord Chancellor, except that in the former
Cott °tied d, instead of occupying a position as Judge,
Itnre to hold a situation as a mere clerk to the
bre:, been said that the reason for not appoint-
SlEltely W"
because he was a solicitor. This
et be any ground of objection, because