The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-22 00:00:00

JUNCTION RAILWAY.

Mr. SHAW brought up the report of this Bill.
MANCHESTER AND ASHTON-UNDER-LINE RAIL.
WAY (DUKENFIELD and GLOSSOP BRANCHES).
Mr. GREENE brought up the report of this Bill.
DUNSTABLE RAILWAY.

On the motion of Lord HARRY VANE, it was agreed
that counsel should be beard on this Bill before the Com-
mittee.

HYDE AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY.
Mr. SHAW brought up the report on this Bill.
RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.

On the motion of Lord HARRY WAVE, this Bill was read
a second time.

Mr. AINSWORTH presented several petitions from the
landowners and others on the lines, against the Shropshire
Union Railway and the Trent Valley Railway.
MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN.

Mr. SHAW gave notice of a motion, that when the Com-
mittee on Group II had closed its labours, and given in its final
report, he should move that Mr. W. Smith O'Brien be dis-
charged from custody.—( Hear, bear.)
GERMAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.

Mr. WODEHO USE wished to put a question to the First
Lord of the Treasury relating to the German Customs Tariff.
He referred more particularly to the letter from the Earl of
Westmoreland to the Earl of Aberdeen, dated Berlin, Nov. 8,
1842, respecting the increase of import duties on woollen and
printed cotton goods, as well as other articles of manufacture,
to take effect during the years 1843, 1844, and 1845. He
wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had any
objection to lay this letter and any other documents which he
had received on this subject on the table of the House?
Sir R. PEEL, who was indistinctly heard, was understood
to lament that the Hon. Gentleman had not given timely
notice of his intention to put the question. To what dccu-
malt did he particularly refer ?
Mr. WODEHOUSE said to any letters on the subject of
any date.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was understood to object to lay on the
table of the House any documents relating to the alteration of
those Customs Laws, but he should have no objection to lay on
the table the Customs Duties of the Zolverein for 1845, 1846,
and 1848.

BINGLEY POOR-HOUSE.
Mr. FERRAND rose, pursuant to notice, to put four
questions to the Right Honourable Baronet the First Lord of
the Treasury relative to the present state of the Bingley Work-
house. He wished to put these questions because in the year
1842 the Right Hon. Baronet used a Poor Law Commission
report relative to this establishment as a weapon of
attack upon him, and with the aid of which the
Right Honourable Baronet held him up to the indignation of
the House and the whole country. The House would re-
mensber that in the year 1839 the old Poor-law ceased to be
enforced in the town of Bingley, and at that time tke work-
house was only large enough to hold twelve inmates. When
the Poor-law commissioners, however, took upon them-
selves the control of the whole parish, fifty-nine persons were
placed in this building. On a former occasion he stated
this fact to the House, but he was met by the Right Hon.
Baronet with the report of Sir John Walsham, throwing dis-
credit upon this statement. It was only necessary for him to
state now, that since that time, the Bingley poor-house had not
been visited by a. Poor-law Commissioner, and the inmates,
instead of decreasing, had increased to 70. Now, under
these circumstances, he wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, firstly, whether the Government possessed the power
of rescuing from the tyranny of the Poor- law Commissioners
seventy poor persons who were now confined in the Bingley
workhouse, a building only capsule of accommodating twelve
individuals; secondly, whether the Government had power
to compel the Poor-law Commissioners immediately to
visit the establishment and afford some relief to the inmates,
amongst whom the fever had broken out ; thirdly,
whether the Poor-law Commissioners had visited the work-
house since 1832? and, fourthly, whether the Right Hon.
Baronet the First Lord of the Trea3ury would new re-
tract his unfounded charge against the rate-payers of the
parish of Bingley, that they were privy to the confinement of
fifty-nine individuals in their workhouse?
Sir R. PEEL said the House was aware that all communi_
cations between the Government and the Poc,r-law Commis-
`loners were not under hie control, lAt the control of his Right

lion. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home
Department ; but, as ote of the Honourable Goode-
man's questions was connected with it mself, though it related to
something which passed in that House some four
years ago, it would be perhaps convenient that
he should answer the whole of the ques-
tions. The fits' was, whether Government had had
the power of rescuing seventy individuals from the tyranny of
the Poor-law Commissioners? Now, his answer to this
question was, that he apprehended the Poor-law Com-
missioners had the power of restricting the number of per-
sons to be admitted into a workhouse under their control.
With respect to the power of the Poor-law Commissioners of
retaining a number of persons in the poor-house below the
number of those at present remaining there, he had taken the
necessary steps to ascertain how the case stood, amid his Right
Hon. Friend had directed the necessary inquiries to be made.
Immediately upon the receipt of the communication of
the Right Honourable Gentleman, containing the sugges-
tions to which he had alluded, a letter had been ad.
dressed to Mr. Austin, the secretary to the Poor-law
Commissioners, dii eating him to institute an inquiry into the
state of the workhouse of that union, to ascertain whether
the number was greater than it had been under the old poor-
law, and whether there was any fever at that time in the
workhouse ; if so, to report to what extent it prevailed, and
also the names of the paupers who were effiictesl with it, and
whether the removal of any of them was advisable, and of
what number, and to state the result of the whole
of these inquiries. Of course the House would
see that it was impossible to have any connexion
with such a breach of duty as that which the Hon. Member
had charged. Of course, if they had felt it necessary,
they would hare communicated it to the House. lie
must further say, that her Majesty's Government had
directed an especial inquiry to be made, and had desired
to improvementthe s
mond
question,t
hattheyasmtiogrilith
whether her
necessary.hrAi
ajesty
the medical officers to make any suggestions for its
respecten t
had the power to interfere with the iotvhe in
ort!--law Commissioners,
and whether they were inclined to
House would give her majesty's exercise it, he thought the
Governmentl credit on this
charge for every disposition to t
their direction and ; that whenoe
nv
e
ro the officials under
curred, they would take the r any.tdeficiency oc-
correcting the evils by whatever parties steps for
it might
be committed. Now, with respect to the third
questien as to
whether her Majesty's Government possessed the
compel the Poor-law Commissioners' assistent to v Porsit theerto
poorhouse of this union, and whether he had done
so since June, 1842, he (Sir Robert Peel) had
,to say
that as soon as the Hon. Member had addressed his inquiries
to her Majesty's Government, his Right. Hon. Friend the 1
Secretary for the Ho.ne Department had directed the
Poor-law Commissioners to state what had occurred in
connexion with the report of their assistant. It appeared
en this report, that Mr. Clements was in the district for
several months, in fact, until he was removed into Ireland.
It appeared by that gentleman's report, that he was present
at a meeting of the Board of Guardians on the 17th of May,
1843—that he was there again on the 18th of May, 1844,
and that a party, who attended on behalf of the beard of
guardians alluded to this very circumstance. Mr. Clements
was there again on the 13th October, 1844, when he attended
the beard of guardians, at which the condition of the poor-
house was particularly brought under discussion. On the 28th
' of June, 1845, the attention of Mr. Clements was especially
called to the fact to which the Hon. Member had alluded, be-
cause the Poor-law Commissioners have the power of de-
creasing the number of paupers, and his attention was directed
to ascertain what the number then really was. He stated, in
reply to the letter, that he had been in communication with the
board of guardians on this subject, and that they theught
that it had better he postponed for the present.
It should be borne in mini that the union in question, was not
one of those which was deprived of the power of giving out-
door relief ; and, therefore, as the Poor-law authorities then
had the power to give out-door relief, there would be no occa-
sion to crowd the workhouse. No doubt it was to be lamented
that the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner had limited his
visits to one of the workhouses in question, and that he had not
visited them both more frequently ; but upon receiving the
communication of the Hon. Member he (Sir R. Peel) had re-
quested that steps might be taken by Air. Austin, the
Poor-law Commissioner, to ascertain the actual state of
the facts ; and when that gentleman had made his report
he (Sir R. Peel) would take care that it should be laid upon
the table of the House ; and a report should also be made of
every step that had been taken to afford the necessary relief
in that union. Now, with regard to the last question
put by the Honourable Gentleman, which applied to
himself personally, he begged to say that he never said
that any Hon. Member had acted dishonourably at the time
stated, namely, four years ago. Now, the proposition then
made was that the Poor-law Commission should
be abolished ; but he then said that it would not be
prudent to do so, as the administration of
the law would then be confined to a few local autho-
rities, not responsible to the Government. He also stated at
the same time the substance of the report of Sir John Wal-
sham on the state of this union, and that report confirmed
him in his opinion that it would not be prudent to abolish the
Poor.law Commission. Well, then, the Hon. Member said
that ti at report was altogether unfounded.
Mr. FERRA ND—Not altogether.
Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member said that the Secretary
of State should institute an inquiry on the allegation of the
Poor-law Commissioners. and that the question itself equally de-
manded an investigation. On that observation a Select Committee

was appointed, to"which Committee was referred the report ''
Sir John Walsham with respect to that union. The Com-
mittee having made a full inquiry, presented a report,
which was to the following effect :—" No attempt
has been made to impugn the general accuracy
with one or two trifling exceptions, of any details of Sir John
Walsham's report. The accuracy of Sir John We-
sham's report is fully borne out by evidence."—( Hear, hear. )
That was the report n ade by the Committee. The jus-
tice of that result was questioned, and another proceeding, call-
ing in question the accuracy of Sir John Walsham's report to
the Commissioners, was proposed, but the report stating that
Sir J. Walsham's allegations were justified by the evidence,
was affirmed by several Members of the House of Commons,
amongst whom were Mr. Childers, Mr. Pakington, Sir C.
Napier, Sir J. Trollope, and others. There were three Mem-
bers of that. Committee who proposed a report of a different
tendency, and amongst them was the Hon. Member himself.
That report was laid on the table of the House, affirming the
general accuracy of Sir J. Waltham, and three years ago, in the
succeeding sessions--or it was now nearly three years and a half
ago—the Hon. Gentleman referred to that report, and
asked him (Sir R. Peel) if he was prepared to retract certain
unfounded charges? He said that he was not—that he had
made no charges which were unfounded, but had merely relied
on Sir J. Walsham's report. If he had made any statement of
an obnoxious character, or under any mistake, he should have
great pleasure in correcting it, and he would say so now, not-
withstanding the lapse of time which had occurred, if he felt
that he had done any injustice to the guardians or ratepayers of
the union. But seeing the report of the Committee, with
respect to the truth of Sir J. Walsham's allegations, and hear-
ing the speech of the Gallant Commodore, he did not feel that
he had said one unjust word with respect to the guardians and
ratepayers of the union, and he was not prepared to retract
what he had said four years since, in June, 1842.
Mr. FEItRAND said that the Right lion. Baronet had
charged him and the ratepayers with being the cause of the
state of the poor-house. It was the Poor-law Commissioners
who sent these people into the poor-house, and who had the
control and management of it. He could say that, under the
old law, the average of persons in that poor-house was nly
twelve, but, under the existing law, tlfty.nine were crammed
into it.

Sir R. PEEL said that it was a most inconvenient course to
refer to what took place four years since The Hon. Member
was the chairman of the board of guardians, and had declined
to give effect to the law.—( Laughter.) There was no obliga-
tion on the board of guardians to place all these persons in the
workhouse, because they had the power of administering out-
door relief. Were not representations made to the Commis-
sioners that it was troublesome that the ratepayer should be
to ed to build a better union to give more suitable accommo-
dation.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELY wished to ask the Hon. Member
for Athlone whether the accusation he made a few evenings
ago against Sir Charles Taylor be true, for if so the Secretary
of State ought not to permit him to continue any longer in
the commission of the peace. If it was not true, he considered
that the Hon. Member who made such a statement was un-
worthy to have a seat in that House. He wished, therefore,
to know what further steps the lion. Gentleman had taken in
reference to the subject.
Mr. S. COLLETT said that he had taken no further st
eps
in the matter. That he had taken measures for the purpose
of lodging in the hands of the Secretary for the Home Depar-
ment copies of the affidavits made before the clerk of the
peace ; and he begged to state that he was desirous to have
the fullest inve, tigation into all the circumstances.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he woWd avail himself of
that, the first opportunity of stating to the House what the
documents were that were sent to him on Tuesday last. He
had considered the documents, and he had found them to be
extra judicial. If false, therefore, no indictment for perjury
could be be tried upon them, and though they were clearly slan-
derous, no civil action could be instituted upon them. If the
documents were flare no remedy could be obtained against the
parties who—to use the expression of the Hon. Gentleman—
had got up the affidavits, or the parties who bad sworn r
a m them.
On the other band, if they were true, it could not
b r
Bunch,obtained
and
Court mo-
ment be doubted that a criminal information
Queen's
m
against Sir Charles Taylor in the
that was the fit tribunal before which inquiry should be con-

diTeieT" Ti-;;;;;;;i--;;;...7
for the Him. Gentleman to be
prosecuted, as he suggested himself, but he himself might, if
hehadconfidence in these affidavits, prosecute Sir Charles
Taylor.
Mr. COLLETT said he was ready to have the affidavits
drawn up in any form the Right Hon. Baronet pleased.
IBRAHIM PACHA.
In answer to a question from Mr. M. Miles,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that immediately her Majesty's
Gevernment was informed that it was likely that Ibraham
Pacha would visit this country, a direct assurance was given to
that distinguished Prince, that, if he did visit this country,
her Majesty's Government would treat him with all due re-
spect.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR wished to know from a
Member of the Government, whether that very enormous
statue of the Duke of Wellington was to be placed upon the
top of the archway on Constitution-hill ? He considered that
it would disfigure the town very much, and it had been di,
covered it was much too large for the arch, and that it was not
strong enough to bear it.

Sir- ROBERT PEEL said that the state of facts as to
whether the equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington
should be placed upon the arch, he believed to be simply this.
Before the subscribers to this very magnificent compliment
had made their subscriptions, a communication was made to
his late Majesty whether, in the event of the subscriptions
being paid, he would have any objection to having the statue
placed upon the arch. A similar intimation was made to her
present Majesty, and both he and the Noble Lord (John
Russell), then at the head of the Government, gave a similar
answer. The statue was consequently built upon a distinct
understanding that it was to be so placed. He thought, him-
self, that a better site might have been provided.—( Hear.)
A great difference of opinion had originally existed as to the
proper place for the erection of the statue, and he had pro-
posed that a site between the Atheneum and the United
Service Clubs, or near the Horse Guards, should be allotted
by the Government for its erection, but it had at last been
decided that it should be placed upon the arch at Constitution-
hill. The great body of the subscribers had subscribed to the
statute under the impression that it should be placed on that
arch; and as permission had been given by her Majesty's pre-
decessor and her Majesty for the erection of the statue there,
the subscribers had acquired a right to have the statue orected
on the arch. He certainly would not advise her Majesty to
withdraw the consent that had been given.
Mr. BAILEY suggested that the statue should, at all events,
be placed in a proper position on the arch.
Sir WALTER JAMES made some observations with re-
spect to the placing of the statue, and stated that it was the
wish of her Majesty that it should be placed over the arch
before Buckingham Palace.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not wish to prolong the dis-
cussion; but, seeing the Hon. Member for Maldon in the
House, he wished to explain. On behalf of the Ecclesiastics'
Commissioners, he was instructed to express their regret that
their solicitor, or or any other officer, should have in:any way
transgressed the rules of the
.House. He hoped that this ex-
planation would be deemed satisfactory.
Mr. E. DENISON would have wished for 4 more detailed'