The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-18 00:00:00

THE bIOTT CASE.

Mr. FERRAND desired to ask the Secretary
of State for the Home Department whether the
appointment of Mr. Mott to the office of district
auditor received the sanction of the Poor-law
Commissioners after he had been dismissed from
the office of Assistant Poor-law Commissioner ? Whe•
ther the Poor-law Commissioners allowed him to hold
the office of district auditor at the time that he was part
proprietor of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, or
after the Commissioners in Lunacy declared, in their
report on the state of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic
Asylum, that Mr. Mott had failed to fulfil a positive
nd solemn pledge which he had given to the justices of
Lancashire, and that he appeared quite unworthy of
the trust, and became most negligent and remiss in tht,
di,charge of his functions? Whether they have al
loNed him to hold the office of district auditor of Lanca-
shire, whilst living in the Isle of Man, out of the way of
hi.; creditors; after he was seised by a sheriff's officer,
wnen on his read to audit the union accounts; durinn
the time he was a prisoner in Lancaster Castle; and
After a public advertisement appeared in the Times
newspaper, warning the public not to pay him money
belonging to the proprietors of the Haydock Lodge
Lunatic Asylum? Whether he has again abandoned
the discharge of his duties, and left England, although
holding the office of district auditor?
Sir G. GREY said Mr. Mott had not been dismissed,
nor had he ceased to hold the situation referred t 9.
There had been 37 candidates for the situation, from
whom two had been selected. At the election made by
the guardians there had been ten votes for Mr Gardiner
and fourteen for Mr. Mott. The Act of Parliament did
not require the sanction of the Poor•law Commissioners
to the election ; nor was it considered that his manage-
ment of the Haydock lodge Lunatic Asylum was a legal
disqualification to his holding the office. That part of
the question which referred to the justices having de
dared him unworthy of his trust was not correct ; and
further, the Poor-law Commissioners had no official in-
formation of the allegations in the third part of tho
question ; and with regard to the fourth, the Poor law
Commissioners had received letters from Mr. Mott
upon official business, from Manchester, dated the 7th
May, where they believed him to be at present re-
siding.

—POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Poor-law Administration Bill being read,
Mr. BANKES presented Is petition from a union in
Dorsetshire, complaining of the conduct of the auditor
for neglect of duty, and that they had received no re-
dress from the Poor-law Commissioners.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. FERRAND said he was thankful to his Right
Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General, for the manly man
ncr in which he had answered his question. Notwith-
standing, however, the high respect which he enter.
tained for the legal knowledge of his Learned Friend,
he would be enabled to produce much higher authority
to bear out his own view of the case. He could not but
express his astonishment at the declaration made by
the Right Honourable Baronet, the Secretary for the
Home Department, that Mr. Mott had not been dismissed
particularly when it had been stated by the Right
Hon. Baronet who had preceded the Home Secretary in
that office, had declared that he had been dismissed, and
that the Hon. Member for Bolton knew the cause why
he had been removed. He would leave that between
them ; but he could not but observe that something
wrong had been said to one or the other of them. Ile
was ready to admit that the Right Hon. Baronet had
said what be believed to be true. At the close of last
session the present Sf.eretary for the Home Department
had give a pledge that a Committee would be appointed
in the present session to inquire into the poor-laws.
Sir GEORGE GREY denied that he had given any
such pledge.
Mr. FERRAND said there could be no doubt that he
had been so reported in all the papers. The Noble Lord
the First Lord of the Treasury, had also declared that
he was prepared to defend the conduct of the Poor-law
Commissioners. Ile would that night have an opportu-
nity of doing it. He hoped he would do so, and prove
that the new poor-law had obtained for the people the
Wessings which were held out would follow in its train—
thikt it had been a blessing, mad not a curse. He, at all