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

Tilt SUN,LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 29, 184'.

discuss
would have ample opportunity at a future period to
these questions, but he must he allowed to say,
that nothing convinced him more of the rottenness of its
Principle or its debasing effects upon the food of this
country than that it received its death-blow in a poor-
'use squabble. It had its origin in a dark document,
"tillyilstrern,herrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum."
;Id until that document was dragged into the light of
its existence was denied, not only in that House,
but
tie other places. So effectually had that law carried
i',lltohle intentions of its authors, that in the union houses
tamly induced the poor to live on the coarsest food,
Ift it had degraded them, that they not only eat the
'ft* but they fought for the stinking bones which
they, were grinding for the fields. No wonder,
:nos that a new spirit had arisen up
lllreghout the country until even the defenders of the
measure was compelled to admit diet the law as it
3444
recould no longer be enforced, and their must be a
i!atelaOcelling of the system. He could tell the Noble
dat the head of the Government, that no remodel-
ling of this system would satisfy the people of this coun-
S, for they would never rest till justice was done to
nice' feelings by a total repeal of this infamous and
creel law. In bringing forward to the notice of this
tissue the motion which he had placed on the votes, he
opinion
endeavour to show first of all what had been the
:talon of the Poor•law Commissioners themselves as
thela inem sof those others who had identified themselves with
carrying out this law, and in doing so he
:ield only quote Parliamentary documents, the truth
"I which no one could deny, because they had undergone
the most rigid examination, and if the truth of these do •
Cements was denied within the walls of the House that
evening,e he (Mr. Ferrand) asserted that that was a
double, reason why a committee of inquiry should be
granted to him. But let the House listen for a moment
le the opinions of these administrators themselves,—
a body of men to whom this Act had delegated au un-
,constitutional and illegal power, the power of making
. •
Laws•evnich the people of this country were justified in
resisting, even until death. He saw sitting in
the
House her Majesty's late Attorney-Ge-
n4kerale and he challenged him to prove that
laws of the Poor-law Commissioners had
been founded in any law of the country. No officer of
the Crown had as yet dared to broach such a doctrine,
and until it was clearly proved that the law was binding
11P°11 the people of this country he (Mr. Ferrand) would
assert that it was their duty to resist, and as long as he
had the honour of a seat in that House he never would
assist in enforcing it ; neither would he, in his capacity
of a magistrate, even when called on to assist in quel
ling any riot arising from the infringement of the law,
do so. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read from
the evidence taken before the Andover Committee. In
the answer of Mr. Lewis to a question of the Com-
mittee, he avouched that the Commissioners might
discharge any assistant commissioner without assigning
R reason. Mr. Chadwick said that on the 30th July he
..aired to Mr. Lewis, who was considered to be the
gentleman most confidentially connected with the Secre-
t:al of State for the Home Department, of some expres-
sions used lay the Right Hon. Baronet regarding him,
but Mr. Lewis's answer was, that he could get no re-
dress. And what did Mr. Chadwick complain of ? He
complained that the late Secretary
retary of State for the Home
Department had charged with using cruel and ill-
tempered language, which had,him
in fact, been used by Mr.
Lewis himself ; and in the evidence before the Commit-
tee, when Mr. Christie put the question, whether that
letter had not been commented upon ?Mr. Chadwick
replied, " No, never." Now, he (Mr. Ferranti) would
ask, was it not hard that Mr. Chadwick should be ac-
cused of what he was not guilty ? And the chairman,
in putting a question to Mr. Parker, and he (Mr. Fer-
rand), in justice to himself, would ask the Members of
that. House to listen to what he was about to read to
them ; for if there had not been a great anxiety to screen
the authors of the unjust attack upon him, the evidence
which he would now read to the House would never
have been struck out of the evidence of the Committee.
To the question of the Chairman, Mr. Parker replied
that he had received notice from Mr. Lewis to go to the
Andover union, and to report upon it ; and Mr. Parker
was proceeding to inform the Committee of the late Se-
cretary of States's instruction in the matter, when the
Chairman told him to confine himself as much as pos-
sible to the Commissioners ; but Mr. Parker was deter-
mined that the truth should come out, and more would
come out yet, and that at no distant day. The state-
ments made by the Home Secretary at that time was
left uncontradicted ; and he had no hesitation in saying
that the Right Hon. Baronet had allowed those under
him to lie under a false imputation. The room was,
after the asking of the question cleared ; and Mr. Man-
ners Sutton, the Under Secretary of State, struck his pen
through that portion of Mr. Parker's evidence, and it did
not appear in the Blue Book. Now, let them hear the
statement of Sir F. Lewis. He said in answer to a question
from the chairman that he considered Mr. Chadwick was
an able man, but at the same time he thought him a
dangerous and unscrupulous officer. Did they discharge
Mr. Chadwick? No: Mr. Chadwick still remained se-
cretary to the Poor-law Commissioners. They dared
not dismiss him. If they did he might tell that which
might not be for the benefit of the Poor-law Corn-.
miasionerr. He would now turn to another portion of
the evidence. There was a clerk of the name of Jenkin
Jones in the office. He was excessively useful to the
Poor-law Commissioners, and Jenkin Jones thought he
was not sufficiently paid for his services, and by
way of rendering a service to a friend he got him in-
troduced into the office as a clerk, for which be re-
ceived a sum of money. Mr. Lewis examined Mr.
Jones as to his conduct in relation to this affair,
but instead of telling him that he was guilty of a mis-
demeanour, as it was his duty to have said, he get all
out of poor Jenkin Jones that he could, and teen he
was the most active man in the prosecution against
him. The case went to trial, and after Jenkin Jones
had been induced to plead guilty, on a promise that
judgment would not be entered up against him, the late
Secretary of the Home Department was declared to be
adverse to any lenient course, although the Commis..
aioners themselves did not wish the case to go on, which
called forth from Mr. Jervis the remarkable expression,
remarkable because applied to the Right Hon. Baronet
in consequence of the course he had pursued, " This
man must be a brute." He would now, for the purpose
of justifying the language used by Mr. Jervis on that
occasion, quote the opinion of Mr. Coode, the Assistant
Secretary. Mr. Parker had fallen into disfavour with
the Poor-law Commissioners, and Mr. Coode, who had
heard that a plot was laid, and that the scheme was
being carried out at Somerset House, wrote to him to the
following effect. Atter mentioning the plot be said, "I
need not say how disgraceful the whole affair
is, and how glad I shall be if their whole conduct turns
out innocuous as they deserve, and I hope that their
shabbiness will recoil on their own beads. If I do not
what I can for yon, call me a rogue fit to serve my
present masters." Now, this was Mr. Coode, the
Assistant Secretary. Poor Mr. Coode was not long
before he was sent about his business. This opinion of
his was much too honest for them. lie had now given
to the House the names and a few of the opinions of the
Poor law Commissioners and their clerks. He would
now bring before their notice three scenes, one of which
had been enacted in that House, another in the Com-
mittee-room, and another in the police -court. The
House would remember that the Honourable
Member for Finsbury had put a question to
the Right Hon. Baronet, and had asked him whether
he would cause inquiry to be made as to certain reports
current that the poor in the Andover Union were living
on rotten flesh, and the Right lion. Baronet started up
in his seat and said that he had never heard of it, but
that inquiry would take place, and that that night he
would send notice of the circumstance to the Poor-law
Commissioners. He did so, and a person was sent down
to Andover of all others he (Mr. Ferrand) would have
thought the least qualified for the task, that person
being the Assistant. Poor-law Commissioner who had
this very poor-law union under his immediate care.
lie was boned to say that this man, Mr. Parker, had
fairly and fearlessly done his duty. lie drew up a
statement which he embodied in a report, and he went
to the Home-office, and having informed the Secretary
of State of the result of his labours, he gave him the
report. The Right Hon. Baronet, after some discussion
with him and with Sir Edmund Head, tried to induce
these two officers to agree to a statement which
Was absolutely untrue—a statement which was con-
cocted for the purpose of deceiving that House. There
(said the Hon. Member, addressing himself personally
to Sir James Graham)—there was a Secretary of State
for the Home Department teaching two public officers
the art of dissimulation.—(Suppressed laughter.) How
could these men be expected to perform their duties
when the Right Hon. Baronet had asked them to agree
to a statement which he should make to this House for
purposes of dissimulation. He (alr. Ferrand was
,enabled to tell the House what occurred at this inter-
view. Sir James Graham said—" Now, what must I
tell the House about this business. It will never do to
bring forward this report—l'll tell you what I'll say :
I'll begin by adverting to bone crushing and unions—
shall then advert to th report of the commissioners—l
shall state that I had an interview with Mr. Parker,
who verbally reported to me the result of his investi-
gations, that some of the inmate& of depraved appetite*
had taken the meat off the bones, and that the matter
had been referred to the surgeons of the anion. If, I
say, that communication was made orally, that will en f
flee for the House." That was the evidence givenb;
Mr. Parker before the Andover Uniea
why did ttenit'
and if that evidence was untrue,
the Secretary of State go down to the committee
and prove it to be so ? But what a picture this
was for a country to view! They had here a
Secretary of State for the Home Department who had
been Secretary of State for six years, during which time
the Poor-law Commissioners had been bit poppets, and
be had pulled the strings.—(Lauebter) r. Lewis
had been the " go-between." He had received the in-
structions of the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, and he had faithfully conveyed these
instructions to the lesser officials. The Hulse would
now see the scene in the committee-room. On the Bth
,of August, 1846, Mr. Christie put to Mr. Parker the
question:—" Are the Committee in the habit
of exercising a control over the Assistant-Secretary and
the clerks, with respect to the evidence which they may
he required to give?" This was a fair question, for the
Committee was aointed to make a searching investi-
gation—but what followed? He (Mr. Ferrand) was not
Present, but he had a copy of what passed, and he
would read it to the House. " Mr. Sutton here
rose, with great excitement of manner, and said,
I must have the room cleared if this ques-
tion is to be put." He must have the room
cleared. Why ? That the answer might not go forth
to the world. The room was cleared, and for a consi
derable time the Committee remained in consultation
with closed doors. During the interval, Mr. Manners
Sutton rushed out i
an agitated
as if
isntate,
Mr. Stuart Wortley followed,I!
t
the return of the parties, some minor points searcha udo
ofs fobevidencewere disposed of, and the Committee adjourned. Soon
after this, a rumour began to spread that a meeting was
likely to occur between the Under-Secretary of State and

_.----. ...---
Mr. Christie—in fact that the Under-Secretary of State
wished to shoot Mr. Christie because he had put this
question to Mr. Parker. There never had been an
answer given to that question, and if the House
did not think that it required an answer, ho (Mr.
Ferrand) kis ,sv that the country expected one.
There was the scene in the committee-room. He would
now carry the House to the scene in the police-court.
After the occurrence in the committee-room Mr. Parker
at once proceeded to the Westminster Police-court, and
there, to the astonishment of the worthy magistrate,
answerable for the peace of the country to the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, applied-for a war-
rant against the Hon. Mr. John Henry Manners Sutton
to have him bound over to keep the peace towards the
Honourable Member for Weymouth. The warrant
was granted, and a great-sized, robust police-
officer was dispatched to the Under Secretary of State
for the Home Department, to intimate to him that his
presence was required at the Police-office. Now, he
asked the House, whether it was right, in the face of all
this, to refuse him a committee cf inquiry, particularly
after the answers of the witnesses in the Andover Union
Committee, brought out conduct as cruel, as unjust,
and he would add, as infamous as ever disgraced any
public office in this kingdom. He was one of those
whose character had been attempted to be destroyed by
these very Poor-law Commissioners, because within these
walls he had fearlessly, and to the best of his humble
abilities, attempted to do his duty,—(Hear, hear.)
Now, he asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department were these men yet in office ? Were these
Poor-law Commissioners exercising their control over
millions of their fellow-countrymen who were too poor to
claim redress in the courts of law ; who had, indeed, no
court to appeal to but that House. He demanded from
the Secretary of State for the Home Department an an-
swer to that question—Were the present Government
going to screen the commissioners from any further in-
quiry ? Were they going to league with the Members
of the late Government, or had they coalesced with them
to refuse him the inquiry ? If they had, of course the
committee would be refuied him. But be knew
well what the country would say to such conduct. The
country would say that Government would not grant the
inquiry, because they were afraid of further exposure.—
(Hear, hear.) The House would remember, that some
three or four years ago, he brought under the notice of
the House an attempt of these Poor-law Commissioners
to erect a treadmill in the union workhouse of the
borough of Halifax. He made the statement upon the
best authority, and yet the late Secretary of State for
the Home Department got up in that House and contra-
dicted him in the flattest terms. Now, would the House
believe that at that very moment the specifi-
cations, and plans, and estimate of cost of
such a building, were recorded in the minutes
of the board of guardians of that union. Mr. Clements,
an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, made a report to
bear out the statement of the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet the late Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, and afterwards, when the chairman of the board
of guardians remonstrated with him on his conduct, he
shook his fist in that gentleman's face, declaring that
what had been stated was false. Now, having given
to the House a slight sketch of the conduct of the Poor-
law Commissioners, ho would now bring before them
the great Jenkin Jones's CUP, for the purpose of show-
ing to the House how these Poor-law Commis-
sioners bad carried on the business of their
office. Before, however, he did so, he would draw the
attention of the Secretary of State for the Home
Department to a circumstance that occurred in York-
shire a few years ago. In a particular district the Com-
missioners determined to establish a union workhouse, but
the people resisted the attempt, and the military were
called out to quell the disturbance. The conduct of the
Commissioners was manifestly illegal, and had any man
been killed, the magistrate who called in the military,
and the officer who commanded them would have been
guilty of murder. But to return to the Jenkin Jones's
case. That person was charged with having sold an
office, and after this charge had been preferred against
him Mr. Jones wrote a letter to the late
Secretary of State for the Home Department,
impugning the conduct of Mr. Lewis, but no notice
whatever was taken of that letter. It was clear, how-
ever, that Mr. Lewis and the Commissioners were afraid
of Mr. Jones, who was a poor clerk at 2001. a year,
while his antagonist, Mr. Lewis, received 2,0001, ten
times as much as the former, for Mr. Coode, the secre-
tary of Mr. Lewis, waited upon Mr. Jones, and inti-
mated to that gentleman
that if he would plead guilty to
the charge of misdemeanour that had been brought
against him be would not be called up for judgment. It
was a trick, however, laid to catch Mr. Jones, and after
he had incautiously acceded to the request and pleaded
guilty he was thrown into prison. Now, he asked, was
Mr. Lewis still a Poor law Commissioner, and if so, did
Government intend that he should remain? The country
demanded that an answer should be given to that
question. The late Secretary of State for the
Home Department could not deny having received Mr.
Jones' letter, because its receipt was acknowledged by
Captain O'Brien, who was at the time the Right Hon.
Baronet's Secretary. He could easily imagine the
_ alarm with which the Right lion. Baronet the late Secre-
tary of State for the Home Depai tment received that
letter. No doubt, the Right Hon. Baronet immediately
sent for Mr. Lewis, and said to him " This is a bad
business. Here is this Jenkin Jones- going to tell all,
and his month must be stopped. We must take care
what we are doing." After Mr. Jones bad been three
months in prison—his punishment was twelve months
imprisonment—he petitioned the Home office for his
discharge, but no notice was taken of his petition, and
in the end he wrote a letter to Mr. Coode, intimating
that no notice had been taken of his petition, and
declaring that he would not allow the matter t. rest.
In the end he was discharged, but at whose order Mr.
Jones never could learn. The imprisonment did not
in any may injure his reputation, and he was
restored to his former situation in an insurance
company, and on his return he was presented by the
proprietors with 100 guineas. After quoting a quantity
of the evidence taken before the Andover Committee
the Honourable Gentleman went on to say he had a
right to demand from the late Secretary of State for the
Home Department what had become of the private letters
of Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis himself said he could not
find them, but the truth was, they had been destroyed,
and it was the duty of the House to inquire how they
were destroyed—whether they were burnt or purloined.
Some of them would yet be forthcoming, for there were
documents in existence which Government would be glad
to possess again. They had not got them yet, and what
was more they would not do so. lie would now bring
under their notice some circumstances more immediately
connected with himself. On a former occasion he de-
clared in that House that the Right Honourable
Baronet the late Secretary of State for the Home
Department had made a statement in the
House which he knew was untrue. He now
distinctly repeated that charge. He would tell the
House the mode adopted by the Poor-law Commissioners,
and the late Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, in getting up reports for the purpose of crushing
the Honourable and Learned Member fur Bolton, and
himself. The person employed in this infamous conduct
was a man named Mott, who formerly got his living by
farming the poor in several large poor-houses in London,
and who was an advocate of the Malthusian doctrine, of
inducing the poor to live upon the commonest quality,
and smallest quantity of food. Having recommended
himself in this way, he became an assistant Poor-law
Commissioner. He had been dismissed from this office,
but was still kept in the employment of the Poor-law
Commissioners in another capacity. Ho was now the
editor and publisher of the " Poor-law Circular," a
publication under the sanction and support of
the Poor law Commissioners, at Somerset House.
He sent a circular to the effect that, that the guardians
would be allowed to take a certain number of copies of
that paper, as it would relate only to matter& iu which
they were officially interested. That concern soon
became bankrupt, and in what character did they think
Mr. Mott next appeared. Why, a partner in the
management of lunatics with Mr. Coode, late Assistant-
Commissioner. Good God ! Could anything be
more monstrous ? He next appeared in the
character of auditor of the district union
and holding the office with the sanction of the Commis-
sioners of Somerset House. So much for that period ;
but how had Mr. Mott been conducting himself lately?
Why he had been obliged to fly his country, to avoid
his creditors ; and was obliged to take refuge in the Isle
of Man. (The Hon. Member here read an extract from
the speech of the late Secretary of State for the Home
Department, which contained charges on him, and proceed-
ed.) This was at a time when he was a magistrate for the
county in which he resided, and nothing had been said
to him about the matter. Now, that was not what he
considered an honourable course to be pursued—an
honourable course from one Englishman to another.
Some opportunity ought to have been afforded to him of
defending himself, but in this case there was none. Evi-
dence was given and received by Mr. Chadwick, and the
report was sent by that gentleman to Mr. Mott. (The
Hon. Member here read several extracts from the report
in question), and continued—Some of the statements in
that report were denied by witnesses of the most respect-
able character. That report was made on the 2d of
June, and they should now hear how the Bolton report
was drawn up. The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bolton had made some statements in the House with
respect to Bolton, and a special Commissioner was sent;
and who did they select but this very Mr. Mott ? And let
that House hear how he conducted himself. Mr. Mott
went to Bolton, but never visited any single case brought
before that House by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
He resided there for some time ; and from the apathy
which he displayed, and from the little advantage that
was likely to result from his visit, the inhabitants of
Bolton thought it would be better to make some move in
the matter. themselves, and deputed Mr. Naseby to bring
before his notice the case mentioned by the Hon. and
Learned Doctor. Mr. Naseby called at Mr. Mott's resi-
dence, and he was told that Mr. Mott had gone to Lon-
don the day before ; but he looked through the window,
Me sawot Mott sMhorr.tMlyoatfttesirttdinegpaarttehdi,s eaansde.—th(eLßacullgtohn-
riwnat
es
dd,r aawnndu pit
wasT h e
sentH o u se
to orderedthei n
htahbaitt
areport
f
Bolton. But what happened ? Mr. Ashworth and
twelve most respectable persons in Bolton and
andwas
a singular proved
fabrication. the :n ffi d a viTt.heßuHtoMn.r.mMeonattb'se report
here
to-
getherthe neighbourhood appeared before the magistrates,
andtit
Report
erb.p)eot there he
.h
eheener e
mdms tuafarsdtoteemmt expresseht
vni 1
sat st
duty
rebuttingua
ntyhyi
as a stour have
functionaryhar
vieseea imputed
ml
thate
pgs
u ttoei
uiodnlndst
im-
proper oet
read copious extracts from the report in questiron
rs
farot statements thteaamivnesenwdltivSt
ahtahlidt
motives, and accused of partisanship those who
had adopted such proceedings. But still the'late Secre-
tary of State continued Mr. Mott in office. A communi-
cation was made which led to an application for the pro-
duction of papers with respect to this matter ; and there
was a statement made by the late Secretary of State for
the Home Department, and when defending himself
(Mr. Ferrand) he adduCed this evidence, together
with lettere and documents, which he would

take the liberty of submitting to the House.
(The Honourable Member• here quoted extracts from
the documents referred to, exculpatory of his conduct.)
Referring to the conduct of the late Secretary of
State for the Home Department in reference to himself
(Mr. Ferrand), he thought there were scarcely any
instance on record of an ex -Minister of that House-
having taken such an unfair advantage of a Member.
He well remembered with what effect he (Sir James
Graham) came down to that House and drew from the
red-box the papers containing those charges against him
(Mr. Ferrand), and the manner in which these accusa-
tions had been received by the House, and the conduct
of the Noble Member for London on that occasion. But
what were the consequences? There were, and are still,
two gentlemen most active in carrying out that law, who
had never since entered a court, or busied themselves
in carrying it out. Sir John Walsham, in his statement,
literally contradicted Mr. Mott in all his statements.
The Right Hon. Baronet, Sir James Graham,
then went on to say. "This was the state of
things in the north of England—a district favoured
too by the presence of the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, and if he were not tearful of
troubling the House, he would complete the picture."
The House cried out from all parts "Go on, go on.
" Well," said the Right Hon. Baronet, " I will go on."
And, accordingly he went on to show that " jobbing"
was going on to a great extent, and that considerable
encouragement was given to lawyers to create legal dis-
utes. There was not a single word of truth in the
whole of that charge preferred by Mr. Mott, under the
direction of the Right Hon. Baronet, and referred to by
him upon that occasion, it was a c• mplete"trumped up'
falsehood, the magistrates never interfered at all in the
management of the Keighley Union. He (Mr. Ferrand)
had been elected chairman of the board, without his
consent or knowledge, but he never acted once upon the
board, and upon hearing the false statement made, he
immediately rose from his seat to deny the statement.
There had been parties who had given information,
where they received it from, he did not know, but he
certainly did receive information between the 17th and
20th of June, that " foul work " was going on at Sower •
set House with reference to the Keighley Union. Upon
the receipt of that information, he (Mr. Ferrand) had
stated in his place in the: House, that the Right Hon.
Baronet Sir James Graham, had referred to a report
of the 17th June, made by a paid Assistant
and a public officer of the Government, who, for special
purposes, had made a report, with a view to mislead the
Government. That charge was never contradicted. On
the 24th instant, the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord
of the Treasury (Sir Robert Peel), addressed the House
in favour of a new Poor-law. Upon that occasion, he
(Mr. Ferrand) saw the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department (Sir James
Graham), lean forward to the red box, and the thought
immediately struck him (Mr. Ferrand) that another
false and calumnious report, prepared by the Governs
meat tool (Mr. Mott), was about to be dragged into
light, and used against him. But lo ! and behold, out
came a commission prepared by Sir John-Welshem, upon
the state of the workhouses in the Bingley Union, con-
taining the most horrifying statements about the living
companioning the dead, and other disgraceful
things. "Is it not then," continued the Right
Honoerable Baronet, " time to interfere to put
a stop to these disgraceful scenes ? Sir John Walsham
received instructions (continued Mr. Ferrand, and ad-
dressing Sir James Graham, who sat behind him) from
you to prepare this report. I challenge you to disprove
it ; and I charged yeti with it at the time, and then
called upon you to disprove it if you could." Upon
that occasion the Right Hon. Baronet, addressing the
House, said, that after that direct appeal which bad been
made to him, he would endeavour to answer it in as few
words as possible, and stated that Sir John Walsham
beiree then at Barnley, lie (Sir James Graham) had sug-
gested to the Poorlaw Commissioners the propriety of
Sir John Walsham paying a visit to the Keighley
Union, in consequence of the dissatisfaction expressed
by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough at Mr.
Mott's report ; and also to inquire into the
order then just issued with reference to outdoor relief.
Mr. Lewis (continued Mr. Ferrand), in his examination
before the Committee, seid " that Sir John Walsham was
sent to visit the Keighley workhouse, with directions
from Sir James Graham." This was sufficient proof
then that the Right Hon. Baronet was perfectly cogni-
sant of the visit of that gentleman to Keighley. Subse-
quently, he (Mr. Ferrand) moved for certain returns,
which would have proved the falsehood of these reports.
They were, however, refused by the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir James Graham). He (Mr. Ferrand) then appealed
to the candour and' the manly feeling of the Noble Lord
the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell)
who, seeing that there was no chance of his obtaining a
majority should the House divide upon the question,
gate his assent at length, though he strenuously opposed
it at first, to the production of the papers. A Select
Committee was afterwards appointed, with considerable
difficulty to inquire into the Keighley union. He (Mr.
Ferrand) believed that Committee was packed, and ho
would tell the House why. Sir Thomas Fremantle, who
was called the Conservative whipper•in, came to him
(Mr. Ferrand) with a list of persons, and asked him to
select the members of his Comuittee. He (Mr. Ferrand)
knowing that the case was so clear, said " it is no matter
whom you take." Sir Thomas Fremantle then went to
Colonel Wood, another Hon. Member of that House, re •
questing to have his name on the Committee. The Hon.
Member replied that he was about to leave town, and
could not possibly serve. llis name was, however, still
kept on the Cosensittee, and consequently they had one
short of their number. Now, with reference to Mr.
Mutt's report, he (Mr. Ferranti) could prove that false
from this circumstance. Mr. Mott charged, in his report,
that the Board of Guardians were acting in defiance of the
orders of the Commissioners. In the documents which
he had succeeded in obtaining, the Commissioners ad-
mitted that there was no evidence to show any disobe•
dience to the orders of Somerset House. It was in the
year 1844 that these papers were laid upon the table of
ethe House, and twelve months after the report made by
Mr. Mutt upon the Bolton Union, in consequence of
which report, or some reason known to the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), Mr. Mott was dismissed.
Why, then, was Mr. Mott employed again after his
previous dismissal? In a speech made by him (Mr.
Ferrand) at Leeds, he stated that Sir James Graham
had taken steps to prepare a report in order to crush an
Hon. Member of that House, and that he had dismissed
the poor tool who had been the instrument of preparing
that report. On the 26th April, 1844, shortly
after the date of his speech at Leeds, Sir J.
Graham said, in the House, that he had en-
deavoured to find any communication which had taken
place between himself and Mr. Mott le ith reference to
the Keighley Union, but he had not been able to do so.
Now he (Mr. Ferrand) had not charged him with having
any correspondence on the subject; he did not know
that at that time he (Sir James Graham) was in con-
stant intercourse with Mr. Mott or Mr. Lewis. The
Right lion. Baronet also said that he had endeavoured
to recollect any conversation which took place between
himself and the Poor-law Commissioners, but had not
been able to recollect anything, neither had the Poor-
law Commissioners to whom he had spoken on the
sulject been able to call to their recollection any verbal
communications, or any correspondence upon the sub
jcct. There was no wonder that they should not have
been able to produce any correspondence, for he (Mr.
Ferrand) believed that all those private communications
were destroyed, and, with reference to his speaking to
the Poor-law Commissioners, he (Mr. Ferranti) believed
that Sir James Graham had never seen the whole of the
Poor-law Commissioners,--Sir Frankland Lewis was
the only one whom he was in the habit of seeing. Why,
with reference to the instructions to Mr. Mutt, the truth
was that Sir F. Lewis had filed in the Court of Queen's
Bench, in the proceedings in the criminal ihformation
obtained against himself (Mr. Ferrand), the very in-
structions which he wished. This is the mode (ad.
dressing Sir James Graham) by which you have endea-
voured to crush me; but I submit that my character
shall 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.
Member then went on to read to the House an affidavit
which had been made and filed by a person of whom
he knew nothing . whatever till the period of
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
on that union ' • deponent also stated that the statements
of Sir J. Graharn respecting him (Mr. Ferrand) were
false, unfouuded, and calumnious, and that the statement
of him (Mr. Ferrand), with respect to Keighly Union,
were true, and that he had documents in his possession
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 character,
whose fair name had never been tarnished by disho-
nour or disgrace, and who had never been convicted, in
that House or out of it, of falsehood. He (Mr. Fer-
rand) trusted, therefore, that the House would bear with
him whilst he attempted to expose the exertions which
had been made to destroy his character, which, had it
not been for the exposure which had taken place, all
evidence taken before the Andover Committee might, to
a certain extent, have been successful, and be and his
posterity might have gone down to the- grave with
his character stained, and his reputation tar-
nished by these most false and calumnious
charges. 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-
missioner, of his situation, to give it to Mr. Twistleton.
The Hon. Member here read the communication with Mr.
Day, which alleged the cause of dismissal, the necessity
of a reduction in the number of Poor-law Commissioners.
In reply to that communication, Mr. Day wrote to Sir
James Graham, but the Right Hon. Baronet declined to
interfere, and said that he saw no reason to find fault
ith the determination of the Poor-law Commissioners
in the selection they had made. Thus, continued
the Hon. Member, the late Secretary of State
of his situation. He did interfere, and the statement
about the reduction of Poor-law Commissioners ut-
terlywasfor the Home Department had rob_ bed Mr. Day
if he branded Mr. Lewis with
(Sir James Graham)
her regions the evidence
h
falsehood? The lion. Member
untrue. He ( Ferrand) would now ask him
twit reference to the
Christie and Mr. S. Wortley,
.plyuest from Mr.
Commissioners, from which it
Mr. Mott was influenced
appeared that the dismissal o
steep
reduction by
ofM rt
Lewis,oo
by Sir J. Grsham to
given
by a desire to fulfil promise
Poor-law
creomf m
the com-
missionerses,'th
was not
on that subject—that Mr. Lewis .
ned in
give Mr. Twistleton a seat in the Poor-law Commission—
that Sir J. Graham had no conference
acquainted with it until the subject was mentioned
Parliament, and be had never seen the letter written by

Sir J. Graham till the publication of Mr. Day's pamphlet.
Now, continued the Hon. Member, here (pointing to-the
printed (stridence) was convincing proof that Day had
been improperly deprived of his situation, and he would
ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he could not have re-
warded Mr. 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-
cumstance which he would mention accompanied that
appointment. It was rot 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 chat he supposed
to be the reason why Mr. Mott was called upon to re-
sign? What did they think was the reply? Air. Lewis
replied that he hoped the Committee would excuse him
from answering the question. Would the Secretary for
the Home Department now answer it. He (Mr. Fer
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-
ferny and disgrace. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving 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 and 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 motion, and has given up the question of general
policy to make a personal attack on me. Mr. Speaker, I
thought, that with my retirement from the service of her
Majesty, with my return into a private station, pursuing
the strictest silence, and giving offence to no one, I
should Lave been spared the bitter hostility which the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough chooses 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 rhope when the
Hon. Member makes accusations of high crimes
and misdemeanours, the House will receive
them with some caution, and allowance. I shall
now proceed to speak f 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 Hen. 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 its 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 ho might object; next there was Dr. Nichol,
Mr. Childers, Mr. Packington, Mr. Trollope, Colonel
Wood, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. W. Williams, Mr.
Aldam, Mr. Grimsditch, Captain Pechell, Mr. B. Clive,
Mr. Colville, and Mr. Thomas Duneombe. 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-
tu'ed—a report which the Hon. Member has designated
as a false report —as "trumped up and false."
The specific charge which the lion. Member had made
was—first, that the report of Mr. Mutt was false; and,
secondly, th.tt 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
Walshatn'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
Walsham'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
:Jr. FERRAND—No, no; I used the term "trumped
up report."
ahielyr,epobret
was false, or not, is not material. Committee,
said that the Committee was a "packed
Sir J. GRAHAM—Whether
rt, in his esti-
mation,and, certainly, I may infer that the report,
It was made in
the first charge' of the Hon. Member.
he
saCidertt
that the report of
1842, and the charge was to the effect t
was false. But, Sir, I have said
Gentleman, who
that Committee was false; and the Hon.
; deposed to
that this was
was himself a Member of that Committee, q„use
the fact, that its report was false; and it is
which the
.
the Hon.
to determine whether the definition
ofrid whether the
ings, is to be received as the correct one;
.ammittee consti -
House will not give some confidence to a Co_
H n. Gentleman
tuted as this one was, especially as the
e 'Messes, and
Gentleman has given under the influeneweh excited feel-
was one of its members, and examined ws
r any accuse
had every opportunity of bringing forward fail ,d to do
tion in the presence of Mr. Mutt, but he has
to -night,
1844. In 1844, as he has reminded the House
ho de-
at a public meeting at Leeds, in a speech
which
than he had
livered, he thought fit to go ono step further
so. So the matter stood from the year 1842 till the year
that I, Mr.
was a false report, and proceeded to allegehad
Lewis, and the Poor-law Commissioners
the
conspiredp
done in 1842, as he stated that the report
"that
Mr. Mott
together to obtain a false report, for
crashing him." I thought it my dety,ila ,
e to ask his
of the Hon. Member, he being in his Pifieteteing not only
attention to an accusation so directly.a
purity of the
my personal honour, but the unstained
ur
bold
office which I then had the honour
0 _
f State.
as one of her Majesty's Secretarikeed
the lion.
I denied that accusation..
I us
and I offered him
Member to proceed with his charge,
w.s ed
h to adhere
every opportunity of doing so if heliont.
Member, the
thpe presence
to the charge he had made; and the
r e, and demurred
himself to the jurisdiction of the H
ousti sting any such
to this as the fair tribunal for inves
.g
t another—he
agaMS.
charge, preferred by one Membera withdrew fro the
refused to sustain his charge, an
e wrounds; bull say
House. It is now renewed, on othe-,e and malignant—
House would recollect, deliberately °fused to submit
that that accusation was unfoundeutad decide in my
(Cheers)—and common candour "nanny referred to
favour. The
Hon.
Member b" g: be ventured, in a
other circumstances; but in July last
d previously adopted,
more substantive form than he
Times no rapper, con
I think were addressed to the b
eh e
b had more than
twining in writing the charges w ixr.
Lewis, acting
once orally repeated
tookh. the opinion of coun-
by advice, at
"caletters in question were not
sel whether the
e Member, if I mistake not, on
to reiterate the charge. He publihsted two letters, which
indictable. The Hen.
g said that he wrote those letters from
a former
when he said he had that eager desire, he
the test ; an.
as his intention, when called upon, to
stated that it
dw
Weed himself as the author of those letters,
waenedk sthat elapsedlu r.
Lewis
se any.
have acknowle. g
was -at once made to him by
an eager edveeseidriee-tobring the points at issue directly to
An application
know f he was the author of those
Mr. Lewis ; to
hat
send
t:oyulocirksthheire,Hsopuesceinutyhiannkd
letters ; but
if
orallyhe
direct answer was
to
it had an opportunity of comingg give
eo
question ;- and when that question was put
to ask that ber
in-Yorkshire, he declined to i
to the Hon. Merl he
was not until an
London, and that
h.application was
to 102 that he said
be was the author
made personally
did not do thatuntil '
it was well known
informedcompelled thetaw
of them. But he
a r had consented that the Times newsP pe
Hon,
to produce the
snow that the -
letters, and therefore
thertetuthrnreede,
to on. Member wrote
them, that he consentedh acknowledge that they ori-
ginatedany answer until
(p eers.) So much for
with him,— his eager-
ness to bring this mailer to a t
est. Then Mr. Lewis,
in a court of law, proceeded to move for a rule, calling
upon the Hon. Member to show cause why a criminal
information should filed not be against him. The Hon.
Member combatted the making of that rule absolute to
the utmost possible extent. It was resisted to the ut-
most, but after full arguments, the Court decided that
the rule should be made absolute. And here, en pas-
sant, I would observe, that the affidavit on which he
(Mr. Ferrand) materially relied was one by Mr. Bar-
ker, and used in the Queen's Bench, on'the rule nisi,
when there was no means of making any answer to it,.
However, that affidavit was before the Court, and
nothing
but my respect for the even flow of justice, and that I
should be criminal in the highest degree if I interfered
with the even current of that justice restrains me from
reading to the Rouse the judgment of the Lord Chief
Justice of England, speaking on behalf of the full Court
when he decided that the rule should be made absolute.'
—(Loud cheers.) I will not read that judgment, but I
will state to the House that I have filed an affidavit—
that I have stated on oath on an affidavit, which is on
the files of the Court, and which is open to he traversed
or contradicted in any way, my most positive solemn
denial that I was a party to any conspiracy whatever
for the purpose of crushing the Hon. Member.—(Loud
cheers.) But, Sir, the Hon. Member
says that the real
nature of the transactions between me and Mr.

Lewis will never be known. (Hear, hear.) 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. I am 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 hope I have satisfied the House
that with respect to the transactions with Mr. Mott, I
am not prepared in the least degree to shrink, but to
give the fullest information that may be re quired at the
proper time and before the proper tribunal.—(Cheers,
and " Hear, hear.") The Hoe. Member said, in referring
to a letter of Mr. Lewis, "that as to Mr. Lewis—what
has become of him ?" I say Mr. Le'vvis has taken the
proper steps to vindicate his honour—the step that the
lion. Gentleman most desires. The lion. Gentleman
has" appealed to Cmsar, and to Czesar ho 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 the ease 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 an 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-
nounce any opinion upon it except as regarding it es
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, I 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 judgment, and he was sen-
tenced to a year's imprisonment, 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 on 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 explanatien, 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,
for 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 shonld be an opening in the
commission, that his claims should be recollected—claims
which were founded upon very pre-eminont services,
rendered under very critical and difficult circumstances.
To-night, for tho 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,
ho 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
anti 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 standa.—(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. BOWRING—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
the matter should undergo investigation. In accordance
with that promise Mr. Mott was sent down, but he did
not conduct that inquiry in a way that was either satis-
factory to himself, or to his constituents. They con-
sidered that be did not take that trouble which he ought,
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. He, himself, wrote a very strong
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 which that inquiry was made. He (Dr. Bowring)
admitted that at that time he was a very
warm friend of the Commissioner.—(Hear, hear.) 01
Mr. Mott he did not hear for a long time, not until the
question of his dismissal came before the House, and
then he interpreted it as a consequence of the complaints
which had been made, and to the dissatisfaction which
had existed from his conduct in that affair. That opi-
nion was confirmed when an appeal was made to him,
as being cognisant of the reasons which led to his dis-
missal.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said that be hoped the House would
permit him, since he had been referred to by both the
Honourable Members, to touch for a few moments
upon the great Mott case.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He had not the advantage of having a previous con-
ference with the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—his
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 Its opinion,
was discreet. The llouse 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 of Elizabeth, which was once considered supreme,
but which had been subject to change. A great revolu-
tion in their own time had been achieved
regarding that law; it was still subject to
change, but at
all
levents it was open to
public and national criticism,andlitto aicaaly that the
modifica-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossiblewhich public opinion
subject was one of those_
upon
should be viewed charitably, nor
.should the expressions
of public men be viewed in a captious spirit. The Poor-
T 1 he Right Hon. Baronet,
law.was a question of charity.
was an influential country
and ho
e
db:cciadmede
a Minister of the Crown,
opinions upon this very question, frendmeedssounrenwan
ntisonina.l
and economical principles. When t
troduced, he supported it with airldlhiinsnooliclayi
at a statesman, but as a manof a
conviction, and he was determined that the law should
be carried out when he came into office ; in all that he
saw nothing but the effects of honest atnimdes,inrceemreemcobner-
viction. But they should, at the m
that there were two opinions, and if the representative
man not' brought into that House
of one of those was a
by a great party,but by the sympathies of his neigh-
bours, such as was the case with his Hon. Friend, whom
every body knew to be a man of earnest 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 behalf
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 whi2h be had adopted. But he
would ask the House where the question bad orizinatecl
—was it, ho would ask, before the Lord Chief Justice
of England ? The resolution was obta,ned by
the most powerful Minister that the country had
ever seen for a century, and who had a Mace-
donian 'phalanx, ready to vote with him when ho
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
criminals.

Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hon. AL:robe'. for
Shrewsbury was one of that very Macedonian phalanx
which he had stigmatised. The question in
dispute wai 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, nemine coNtradcecinic, that it
was a false and calumnious imputation. The 11,,ii.
Member for Shrewsbury had been the close and intimate
friend of that powerful Minister to whom he alluded,
until he saw the prospect of danger, which, when he
descried, he turned and left him to his fate.—(flear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said a great deal had been ob-
served about gentlemen of one 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 had but
one idea, and he thought that none were right bnt those:
which emanated from himself. lie (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 Knaresborough had said that he had left
out one part of his motion. He (Lord John Russell)
was of opinion that if the other moiety had also been left
out, it would have been equally judicious.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member in the motion which he has made,
takes recognizance 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, he
quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Bath, that
the question had been already disposed of, and 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 bad already come to a decision on the question,'
while now the lion. 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.
Coode, 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 Hon. Member the Under-
Secretary of State could hava rated in the manner de
scribed, and still hold his seat in the House.—(Hear,
!ean) -with regard to the Poor-law Commissioners,

the question they—had before them to-night to consider
was, whether the Hon. Member for Knaresborough had
acted wisely in the course ho had taken—whether the
Right Honourable Baronet having acted in the
matter referred to, to the best of his ability and belief,
should now be charged in the manner which had been
done; and whether the Hon. Member for Knaresborough
was not operating on their forbearance too far in ad-
vancing charges of corrupt and improper conduct.
Sir R. PEEL had no wish of taking a part in the
present discussion, considering that the subject was now
before a tribunal, where it would receive a more dispas-
sionate consideration than before that House. 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 Knaresborough. 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 llon. Baronet had used his power for the purpose
of doing wrong to the Hon. Member for Knaresborotgh.
The Hon. Member had not only preferred charges
against the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Secretary o!
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 lion. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg)
with having, as a member of a Committee of
the lletve, made a false report to that House
in order to ttasist 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. 11 Honourable Members would refer to
the records of the proceedings of the House, they would
find this to be the case ; and they should, therefor:,
proceed in the present matter with great circum-
spection. When the discussion was first raised on thi,
question he advised delay ; he was anxious to do this
in order to test the accuracy of the charges, whether
they were well or ill founded. They were again re-
peated, and he again advised delay, in order that full
opportunity might be given for inquiry. The charge!
was this—the Secretary of State had violated the oaths
of his office and trusts reposed in him, and that
the fullest investigation should therefore take place.
It then became his duty, after the Hon. Member had de-
clined to retract or to substantiate his charge, to move'
the resolution which was carried by the House. So far
from this resolution having been passed in consequence.
of any power held by him in virtue of any office with,
which he was invested, he believed that no resolution
ever passed that House which had been carried with
more universal consent than was that resolution. So far
from carrying with them any vindictive feeling, be was
sure that there was not one Member of that House who
did not wish to be relieved from the responsibility im-
posed upon him. These were the circumstances under
which he had been compelled to suggest the resolutions
which had passed the House, and if the Hon. Gentleman
did intend to convey a censure against him for using any
power which he possessed to his prejudice, he hoped— he
was sure—that the feeling of the House would be, that
in this matter he was quite blameless.
Mr. CHRISTIE said that he was anxious that the
debate should not close without his making one or two
observations upon the matter which had been brought
before the House. But he would assure the House,
without any affectation, that if the Right Hon. Baronet
had not alluded to the subject in the way he did, he
(Mr. Christie) would not on that evening have asked the
indulgence of the House. ()a the production of the
memorandum of conversation which was held with Mr.
Parker, that Right Hon. Baronet seemed to complain
that if he (Mr. Christie) had thought at one time as he
now did think, he should at that period have said what
it was that evening his intention to say. The Right
lion. Bart. had said that the charge made against him
was that he had wished to suppress the report in the
sense of destroying it. He (Mr. Christie) never thought
of making that charge. He might inform the Hon.
Baronet that for the production of that document he
(Mr. Christie) was alone responsible. It was placed in
his hands by Mr. Parker, with a variety of other docu-
ments relating to his case, and he was allowed to exer-
cise his personal discretion in the production of them,
without consulting that gentleman, and he would take
that opportunity of saying that he (Mr. Parker) was
not in any way responsible for the production of that
paper. The Right Hon. Baronet spoke of Mr. Parker
as having made a written memorandum of that conver-
sation, in violation of an implied pledge. With regard
to the making of that memorandum, he had the strongest
conviction upon his own mind that Mr. Parker was led
to make that memorandum from a feeling of insecurity
and want of confidence in his superiors. The Right
Hon. Baronet had taken exceptions to some of Mr.
Coode's statements, as leading to the conclusion that it
others of the subordinates, in other departments, were to
act in a similar way, the measures of such public de-
partments would be at an end. There was, he was sorry
to say, a general feeling among the subordinates of the
Poor-law Commissioners of a want of respect and con-
fidence in their superiors in that department. The Hon.
Member for Knaresborough had stated that Mr. Coode
was dismissed by the Poor-law Commissioners in conse-
quence of the evidence he had given before the Com-
mittee.

Mr. FERRAND—No, for writing the letter.
Mr. CHRISTIE—Now it was right that the House
should know that Mr. Coode had applied before the
Poor law Commissioners were aware that he had written
that letter.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet
had endeavoured to defend the Poor-law Commissioners
in their conduct to Mr. Day. He was not anxious to
take the House into the subject, of Mr. Dey, or of the
resignation of Mr. Day • but he must say that after
what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, that
the Committee which had been appointed to examine
into the circumstances, and which had been presided
over by the lion. Member for Droitwich (a
friend to the l'oor-law Commissioners), that
Committee had come to the conclusion, without
a division, that after the fullest and most patient
investigation, the Poor-law Commissioners had failed
to justify their calling upon Mr. Day to resign.
The name of Mr. Jenkin Jones had been called up. No
one could blame the Right lion. Baronet for the manner
in which he had spoken of Jenkin Jones. The Right
Hon. Baronet bad 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
year's imprisonment he held the office of actuary toan
insurance company. While holding that office he had
invited a committee of the directorsas to go into the whole
w
of the case, and the House aware that these
directors were responsible to a large body of proprietors,
who looked very sharply into their proceedings. Well,
after the fullest investigatio, the Committee came to
the determination of
rki keeping his office of actuary open
till his release from
in his office, and he
cently he received a I They then reinstated him
pst'slolno.ecupied it, and only very re-
cently handsome mark of their ap-
probation, accompanied by a valuable present. The