The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-06 00:00:00

TH. VON, LONDON,- FRIDAY EVEN'Igd, WARCII 65 1846.

sutisrac

_ .I ,l, ruoreus er, that where he had time
to prepare, he had entirely- estallished his inte.ceite..
Ile further stated that Air. Parker bad premiseu him
dine to pvepare his evidence, and that that premise had
been fulfilled; in consequence of winch, he found
it rnecessery to resign, or proeeed to his de-
tenee without being able to furnish any evidence
~ hiz iniiooe ee. Under these circumstances there was
urn vot.r.o (pep to him to itdo;2t, and that was nut
euntinue, and to Llitow the de-
nial of justice on the Poor-law Commissioners. 'Fhere
were two incidents in that inquiry, which struck him
in a remarkable manner, and which, he must say, ap-
peared to him inexplicable, except upon a supposition
to which he was most unwilling to give his assent,
namely, that the Poor-law Commissioners, thoroughly
scared by the inquiry, were determined to stop it, at
every hazard, no matter who might suffer or be injured.
—(Hear, hear.) At a time when the public prejudice
was at its height, the Poor-law Commissioners suddenly
sent down an order suspending an inquiry, and with it
a proposal that another course should be adopted,
which he (Mr. Christie) must say was of a
most extraordinary and unjustifiable character,
It aas that Mr. Wesley, the party bringing the charges,
should select one case of embezzlement upon which the
Commissioners would prepare an indictment against the
master, and one charge of an a,ternpt to take liberties
with the female inmates, upon which also they would
prepare an indictment, and send tie cases for trial at the
sessions. Now he asserted that this was a most unjust
proposal, for if the master was acquitted on one ease,
wou!d he not have reason to complain that he had not
been allowed to defend himself from the other charges
which were brought against him, especially when it is
considered that the evidence supporting those allega-
tions was before the public—and even were he acquitted
on that one case, would it not have been said ever after
by the public, that he would not have been acquitted
on the others had the evidence been gone into. He said,
therefore, that such a course would not have been avail-
able for the purpose of justice. The proposal, however,
being unsatisfactory to both parties was refused; and
when it was so the Poor-law Commissioners determined
to resume the inquiry, and accordingly Mr. Parker re-
commenced the investigation. That gentleman pro-
posed that the master should be allowed some few days
to prepare his defence ; this was, however, negatived,
The counsel for the accused then applied for time and
sought a respite of ten days. After much discussion,
however, all parties consented to the propriety of a grant
of five days. Mr. Parker returned to town, and had an
interview with the Poor-law Commissioners, whom he
found strongly disapproved of the course which had been
adopted in permiting the delay of five days. Now he
(Mr. Christie) contended that fora defence to the charges
which had been made, five days was but a short time to
prepare some of those charges ; especially those relating
to improper conduct, which were of a nature diffi-
cult to disprove ; and particularly so when the party is inno-
cent. But it should be recollected that many oft hese very
charges referred back to a period many years anterior to
the time when the charges were first made. But the Poor-
law Commissioners overruled the delay, though Mr.
Parker assured them that if they did so the counsel for the
accused would advise his client to throw up the case,
and throw the odium of the denial of justice on the
Commissioners. His remonstrances, however, were
without effect, and the matter turned out exactly as
Mr. Parker had anticipated. Now he considered he had
made out a case upon strong grounds, which fully jus-
tified him in demanding an inquiry into the conduct of
the Poor-law Commissioners. Somethinc, had been
said of the mode in which Mr. Parker had conducted

the inquiry, and he must say he heard with
great surprise an observation which fell from

the Right Honourable Baronet in depreciatien
of that gentleman. He had been dismissed from his
situation, but there was one thing which must strike
every man, that Mr. Parker invited inquiry ; the Poor-
law Commissioners shunned all investigation. If the
Right Hon. Gentleman alluded to the appointment of
Mr. Price to the office of master, he (Mr. Christie) had
only to state, that before Mr. Parker went down to An-
dover, he had an application from Mr. Price, for Mac-
dougal's situation, for such time as would be thought
fit. Mr. Price had the highest recommendations, and
Mr. Parker had an opportunity for some years of judg-
ing of his character and capabilities when placed in a
similar position ; and, from what he then observed,
he highly approved of his conduct, and, be-
sides that, Mr. Price had letters of recommendation
from the chairman of the board of guardians at Oxford,
speaking in the highest terms of him, and urging Mr.
Parker to get some better situation for him. Mr. Parker
had also seen Price when he was applicant for the Swin-
burn Union, and he then examined his testimonials,
which were of the highest character, and he was there-
fore not surprised to receive the application; and having
such a high opinion of Price, he had no hesitation in ap-
pointing him. No person who considered the circum-
stances, could ever blame the course pursued by Mr.
Parker. It would have been much more agreeable to his
(Mr. Christie's) feelings if the Right Hon. Gentleman
had felt it his duty to consent to this inquiry, for he
would then have moved for it without any preface, but
under the circumstances of his refusal, he could not have
sought one without making a case which would justify
his demand. He had the honour of being acquainted
with Mr. Lewis and Sir E. Head. No one could deny
their abilities, and he was sure he would be the last
person who would be a willing party to any harshness.
But he must say, that Mr. Parker had been most un-
fairly dealt with by the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. Parker had been in the service of the Poor-law
Commissioners for a term of nearly ten years. He had
been first engaged as assistant secretary, and subse-
quently as Assistant Poor-law Commissioner. He left
the honourable profession of the bar to enter their
service; and now, after the lapse of nearly ten years, by
that act, that arbitrary act of dismissal, he was again
thrown back on his profession, though every gentleman
who knew anything of human nature should be aware
that, having given up a profession for so many years,
and then returning to it, the man who did so laboured
under very inauspicious circumstances.—(Hear, hear.)
His peculiar hardship was that, in the course of the
inquiry, facts and circumstances had transpired, and
statements had been put forward in the newspapers that
caused great excitement, and brought much odium on the
Poor-law Commission, in the administration of which
he held a prominent pert ; yet no steps had been taken
to explain why he was dismissed. He (Mr. Christie)
certainly thought, until he heard the statement of the
Right Honourable Baronet (Sir James Graham) that
there had been some cogent reason for his dismissal ;
but after what had fallen from that Right Honourable
Gentleman, it would appear that the Poor•law Commis-
sioners disapproved of the mode in which he had con-
ducted the Andover inquiry, though everything he had
done in reference thereto was done under their order.—
(Hear, hear.) However, the dismissal of Mr. Parker at
that time, and under such peculiar circumstances, led
the public to infer that he had been dismissed be-
cause the Commissioners had adopted all the
complaints made to them in reference to the
conduct of the Andover investigation.—(Hear, hear.)
There had been a petition presented to that House by
Mr. Parker,in which he stated that he believed, and was
fully prepared to prove before a Committee of that
[louse, by evidence the most unquestionable, that the
Poor-law Commissioners dismissed him (Mr. Parker)
in order to divert from themselves the odium that
naturally would attach to them from such an inquiry.—
(Hear, hear.) And ho (Mr. Christie) should say, on
behalf of Mr. Parker, that he had made out, in his
opinion, a strong, a powerful case in support of his
statement.—(Hear, hear.) So strong did he believe the
case to be, that the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary
for the Home Department, should, in justice to the
Poor- law Commissioners, grant the inquiry, and
then let these gentlemen produce their re-
butting testimony, when the public could judge
who was right and who was wrong.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Honourable Baronet had. however, moved an
amendment which he hoped would be negatived ; and
though it might be said that the Poor-law Commis-
sioners had a discretionary power to remove and rein-
state their assistants at will, yet he (Mr. Christie)
wished to know if that discretionary power was to be
exercised by them without responsibility ?—(Hear.)
Ile looked on it that there was a responsibility, for the
House of Commons annnally voted these gentlemen their
salaries ; and he then begged to acquaint the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite, that if he should think fit to
shield them from inquiry by negativing his proposition,
he would feel it his duty, when the period for voting
such salaries arrived, to confer with any other Honour-
able Members in resisting the payment of such
until such an act of injustice and harshness should
he inquired into and explained. (Hear, hear.)
One of the principal charges advanced against Mr.
Parker was, that he published documents that became
known to him as a public officer, and in the discharge
of his duty as such. Now if the Poor-law Commission-
ers had the power to dismiss an Assistant-Commis-
sioner, and then refuse all inquiry, such a doctrine, as
precluding the injured party from making known their
grievances, with a view to procure their redress, would
lead to a great hardship, and the result, in his opinion,
would be that there would be no security for any public
servant hereafter. (Hear, hear.) He then left the
case of Mr. Parker in the hands of the Right Hon.
Gentleman ; and he hoped he would, in justice to
the Poor-law Commissioners, grant the inquiry
which ho (Mr. Christie) sought for. But it the
Right Hon. Gentleman should persist in refusing the
inquiry, he should appeal to the Hon. Members of that
House, and tell them that the case was not alone the
case of Mr. Parker, but that of every public servant ;
and that, judging from the way in which he had been
treated—his past services forgottee—no allowance made
for the single indiscretion of a long-tried and public
servant—such would also be their treatment, the result
of which would undoubtedly prove disastrous to the
most important interests of the country.—(Hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM (who was quite inaudible in
the gallery) was understood to say, in reply, that it was
true he had received a written report from Mr. Parker
about the last day of last session; and he did not
hesitate to say that he thought he used that document
for the public good. The lion. Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Christie) had given it as his opinion that Mr.
Parker had not transgressed the bounds of his duty, in
introducing to the public reports of conversations that
had occurred between him and the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. Now he (Sir J. Graham) should say that such
a course of proceeding was indeed very novel. Now, as
regarded the inquiry sought for, he begged the House
wobasd consider what the position of the Poor-law Com-
missioners really was. Parliament had given them the
absolute power of appointing and dismissing their assis-
tants, inasmuch as they were responsible for every act
done by their assistants. The act of the assistant was the
act of the Commissioner, for the assistant was the agent,
as it were, of the Commissioner ; and if there rested not
such a power with the Commissioners. how was it possible
that any business could be performed, or who would
make themselves responsible for its due performance ?
(Hear, hear.) It would, in his opinion, be destructive
of the entire machinery, if the power of that body were
questioned ; and he then felt bound to tell the lion.

quiry.

Gentleman that it was not on account of the mode
is which the Andover inquiry had beet con-
.
ductal, nor was it for any specific act, that Mr. Parker
was dismissed. Mr. Parker had been the subordinate
officer,of the Commissioners, but, in a spirit of insubor-
dination to his superiors, he qaarrell.d with them ; they
became dissatified, and accordingly dismissed him.—
(Hear. hear.) He would not trespass further upon the
attention 01 the House, as he wished to confine himself
to an explanation relative to Mr. Parker.
Mr. FERRAND said that he might consider this, not
merely as a work hcuse squabble, but a Somerset House
one. He thought the day had arrived when the Right
Hon. Baronet should declare by what means he became
possessed of those documents, as he considered that his
character required him to make that explanation. He
congratulated the country that bone crushing had, in
conpequence of this exposure, been abolished from work-
houses. He remembered well the treatment he received
from the Right Hon. Baronet, in reference to the erec-
tion of a rag-mill in the Halifax union. The Right Hon.
Baronet then gave a pledge to the House and the
country—and how had that pledge been fulfilled ? The
present question was an answer to that. He was
travelling on the continent when the news of the pro-
ceedings at Andover union were published—(llear)
and the foreigners whom he met were quite disgusted.
He thought it was the duty of the House to grant the
Committee of Inquiry. He gave notice, that afternoon,
of his intention to add a few words to th.s motion of the
lion. Member, and he hoped the inquiry would lie ex-
tended to his own neighbourhood. Ile had no hesita-
tion in saying that these reports were drawn up by the
Special Commission, to serve the views of the Right
lion. Baronet, and that Mr. Mott was employed for the
purpose of drawing up a false report, to crush him (Mr.
Ferrand). Mr. Mott entered the union on the 13th of
April, 1842, and in the June following the Right
Honourable Baronet got the report drawn up. Mr.
Mott was sent down to the north of Enngland
to make these caluminous statements, and Sir John
Walsham was sent down some time afterwards to con-
firm the statements of Mr. Mott. The Hon. Gentleman,
after referring to the Keightley Union, proceeded to say
that a Committee of Inquiry had been appointed to in-
vestigate the accuracy of the statements, and he had no
hesitation in saying that it was a packed committee.
The Right Hon. Baronet resisted the motion for the
p'roduction of all papers. The Noble Lord the Member
for the city of London said that he could not under-
stand the reason of that refusal. Until the Right Hon.
Baronet made some explanation in reference to these re-
ports, he (Mr. F.) should treat any resolution of the House
with contempt.—(The Hon. Member, having been called
to order by the Speaker, withdrew the offensive expres-
sion.)—The Right Hon. Baronet used language towards
him (Mr. Ferrand) for the purpose of bolding him up to
the scorn and ridicule of the country. At the time Sir
J. Walsham made his inquiry there were fifty inmates
in the union at Bingley in the state that had been de-
scribed. He could prove that there were at that place
four and five crowded in a bed. The Secretary of State
for the Home Department was to blame kr all that had
taken place there. He was, to be sure, backed by the
Poor-law Commissioners and the Assistant-Commision-
ers, but it was in the power of the Right Hon. Baronet
to remove them. He hoped that this inquiry would end
in removing the Commissioners, and that the Ministry
would also be obliged to resign.
Captain PECHELL thought there was a groat ne.
cessity for the production of papers for the purpose of
a thorough and searching inquiry. Ile thought that the
Andover Union called for some explanation, and he
trusted the result of the labours of the Committee would
be the doing away with the abuses complained of. In
one union the guardians say that they have one ton of
bones on hand, and there being a refractory pauper, the
bones were to be ground by him. It was well known
what a punishment this bone-grinding was. They
were green or damp, and it was by the severest labour
they could be reduced to powder. He hoped the Right
Hon. Baronet would reconsider his amendment, by al-
lowing this Committee to take place.
Sir R. INGLIS wished to call the attention of the
Right Hon. Baronet to the facts attending the case of
Mr. Parker. It appeared to him that that gentleman had
been too severely punishied for what was at the most an
act of indiscretion ; for it was not said that he had com-
mitted himself wilfully. He was a gentleman of an
honourable profession, yet by this act of indiscretion his
whole prospects were blighted. He trusted the Right
Hon. Baronet would see that Mr. Parker had been
treated too harshly, and that he would yet be reinstated
in his former position. If any Hon. Member would say
that Mr. Parker had been guilty of anything more than
an act of the most trifling indiscretion, he (Sir R.
Inglis) would consent to the withdrawal of the petition.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that not only had there
been indiscretion committed by the Assistant-commis-
sioner, but the consequences of his conduct were insub-
ordination and want of discipline in the workhouse.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that notice had been given
for the production of certain papers relative to the
Andover Union, so far back as six weeks ago ; and that
had been complied with. He had read the whole of Mr.
Parker's case, and he (Mr. Duncombe) considered he
had made out a very good case. But if his case was to
be gone into by this House, it would be only to do over
again all that had been done already. He conceived that
the only mistake Mr. Parker made was in resigning his
office at all. He should have waited till the Commis-
sioners dismissed him. It often happened that Go-
vernment Ministers were recommended to resign,
but they declined to do so until a majority of this House
compelled them.—(Laughter.) lie would say that as
Mr. Parker was not a member of that House, and could
not therefore lay his own case before it, it would be
much better if the Hon. Baronet opposite, instead of
laying these papers before the House, had agreed to the
vote at once.

Mr. P. BORTHWICK said he did not think that
this matter should be regarded as a mere workhouse
squabble, but as matter of somewhat more importance.
They had sent out missionaries to foreign countries to
alleviate the miseries of the natives ; but would they
not be more ready to make inquiry into the state of
Englishmen who were at home, and within reach, and
where their miseries could be more easily ascertained,
and the manner in which those miseries had been aug-
mented by those to whose tyranny they were subjected ?
He saw by the paition now before the House, that much
had been suppressed before the original inquiry that
should have been made known ; and that through the
assent and connivance of the Commissioners, evasions
had been made in the books of the guardians, and that
the Commissioners and guardians had entered into a com-
bination to dismiss the physician for having done his
duty'.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
Mr. HUME said the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
had stated that acts of insubordination had been com-
mitted by the paupers. Now he (Mr. Hume) would
like to know what the nature of this insubordination
was; for he would contend that there should have been
a minute made and a record kept of the nature of these
acts.—(Hear, hear.) lie would defy the Government
to refuse this inquiry, for the House would grant it if
the Right Hon. Baronet attempted to screen the Com-
missioners in this way. _

Lord POLLINGTbN said he would only utter one
sentence, and that was, that from all he had heard this
owning upon this question ho would vote for the in-

MC. JARVIS said he considered it would be of
the greatest public importance that the Government
should define the duties of the Commissioners. He
would ask, if Mr. Parker had been indiscreet before the
inquiry, why was he appointed to make this investiga•
tion?—(Hear, hear.) He would say that he was at a
loss to know what was meant by the term " refractory."
Surely, it could not be said that Mr. Parker had made
any admissions of this sort, or any admission even of in-
discretion. On the contrary, ho made a fair and hum-
ble statement of his conduct, and, therefore, further and
strict inquiry should be made. He hoped the Right
Hon. Baronet would grant this inquiry, regardless of the
consequences to the Commissioners, and he had no doubt
that the result would prove creditable to Mr. Parker ;
but if it were not made, the public would not be satisfied.
—(Criesof " Divide, divide ")
General JOHNSON wished that a Committee of In-
quiry should be appointed. The public were not satis-
fied with the present state of affairs. Even if the com-
mittee of inquiry were appointed at a late period—even
after the recess, the Hon. Member would be content
to withdraw his motion.

Mr. AGLIONBY said that the public service was too
much implicated to allow this inquiry to be suppressed
and an inquiry was certainly necessary in order to clear
up the mystery that had hung round this question. The
public mind had been for some time past absorbed in this
question. They thought that something had beenkept from
them, that some instructions to higher quarters had been
kept in the back-ground. A man might certainly
be a Commissioner, but would the public think that he
ought not to conduct himself as a gentlemen. There
had evidently been an act of insubordination committed
by some of the parties employed, and therefore he
thought that the inquiry ought to be made more general.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that he would
not occupy the attention of the House for any length of
time. He certainly thought that the present question
ought not to pass without the attention of Government.
It was not only the Commissioners but the guardians
that were implicated in the proceedings that had taken
place. These proceedings had been brought to light by
parties who were not interested. The people were com-
mitted, without any remedy, to the mercy of Poor-law
Commissioners and guardians ; so that where miscon-
duct had occurred, both justice and every sound prin-
ciple of policy demanded a more extended inquiry, and
he wished that the sense of the House should be taken
upon the subject.

Mr. FIELDING said, that in his opinion a Select
Committee should be appointed to carry out the in-
quiry. The public felt interested in the inquiry. They
would look to the decision of the House on this matter
with more anxiety than they would to the corn-law
question—(Hear)—and if Hon. Members wished to do
what was reasonable, the inquiry would at once
be granted.—( Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that when it was said that he
was always ready to attend to the general feeling of the
House—nothing more than justice had been done to
him.—(Loud and prolonged cheering from all parts of
the House.) The production of certain papers on this
subject had been moved for, but he believed that a Com-
mittee of Inquiry would not be necessary if the House
should, after the production of those papers, remain of the
same opinion. He certainly was willing to withdraw his
amendment, but with respect to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Weymouth, he should offer the most decided
opposition. The Poor-law Commissioners were respon-
sible for the acts of their own servants, and therefore he
thought that no interference should be allowed with the
power of appointing those officers.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Mr. CHRISTIE wished to say a few words in addi-
tion. After what had fallen from the Right Hon.
Baronet, he must press his motion. He considered that
the inquiry into the causes which had led to the dis-
missal of Mr. Parker should be coeval with the investi-
gation into the tiff Airs of the Andover Union.

0 Mr. JARVIS rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide." He should vote against the amendment. He
thought it would be better to inquire into the affairs of
the Andover Union first, and afterwards find a Com-
tnittea to investigate the circumstances that had led to
Mr. Parker's dismissal. He was of opinion that many
parties in the House only supported the amendment, not
caring for Mr. Parke;, but to embarrass the Right Hon.
Bar,met.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") Such was his opinion,
and, under those circumstances, he should vote against
the amendment.
Dr. BOWHING said the remarks of the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir James Graham) decided him to vote for
his Hon. Friend, as the inquiry ought to be full and
complete. He must support the amendment.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped the House would unanimously
agree to the fullest inqury. The feeling out of doors
was unanimous for an investigation. If the Poor-law
Commissioners had this unlimited power attributed to
them, in Heaven's name, let the country know how they
use it. The Right Hon. Gentieman has shown him•
self squeezable, and he (Mr. Wakley) would advise
him to yield a little further. By doing so a division
would be avoided, and the disagreeable possibility of a
defeat. He must take that opportunity, in justice to Mr.
Westlake, the medical attendant of the Andover Union,
to inform the House, and through them the guardians of
that union and the public, that he (Mr. Wakley) had
never received any communication from that gentleman
till after the period he brought the subject before the at-
tention of the House. Ile said so that Mr. 'Westlake
might not suffer in his interest, as he (Mr. Wakley)
understood that a conspiracy was on foot which was to
be carried out next Saturday by driving that gentleman
from his place. It was but proper that this ejection
should be prevented till it was known whether he de-
served dismissal or not. They had shown great sym
pathy to the legal gentleman (Mr. Parker) who had
been dismissed, and he trusted they would also extend
it to the medical profession which was attacked in the
person of Mr. Westlake.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had always maintained
that the Poor-law Commissioners were responsible to the
Home Secretary, and that the Home Secretary was re-
sponsible to the Honse of Commons. The Right Hon.
Baronet therefore was bound to satisfy the House re-
specting the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners.
If Mr. Parker had been guilty of insubordination, the
I'oor-law Commissioners had a right to dismiss him ;
but that ought not to preclude inquiry. The question
was whether Mr. Parker was in the wrong, or the
Poor-law Commissioners ; and in order to arrive at
the truth there ought to be an inquiry. He called on
the Right Hon. Baronet to concede the whole inquiry at
once, and not make the half-concession he had done, as
ho was sure to be defeated. Grant the Committee for
the full inquiry at once, and it would soon come out
which party was in the wrong.
Sir B. HALL briefly stated his intention of voting
for the amendment,
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found that the
numbers were—
For Mr. Christie's amendment 92
Against it
_

Majority for the amendment...
THE NUNS OF MINSK.
Mr. COWPER then rose to move that copies of dis
patches received by the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affair's, containing information about the persecution
inflicted upon the Basilian nuns of Afinsk, should be laid
upon the table. (The Hon. Member then referred to
the punishments which were said to have been inflicted
upon the nuns of Minsk.) The report of the horrible
barbarities perpetrated upon them was authenticated by
the deposition of each of the unfortunate victims. They
wero employed in works to which they were altogether
unaccustomed, and Of six hundred and fifty-eight that
were alive at the commencement of the persecutions,
which lasted seven years, only fourteen were now living.
if the history of their persecutions was true, it was a
most lamentable and awful one—(Hear, hear)—and one
which cast a stigma upon the age in which we lived.—
(Hear, hear.) It was true that some people were in-
clined to disbelieve the statements, from the very
atrocity of the affair ; but that was no evidence that the
cruelties complained of had not been exercised.—(Hear,
hear.) Indeed, the annals of religious persecu-
tion showed us that such cruelties had never
been exercised within the memory of man.
In past ages we had seen, by the annals of the In-
quisition, that scenes of great horror and unprovoked
slaughter had occurred. In England itself we had had
too many instances of horrid barbarites committed some
centuries ago on account of religion. But the Inquisi-
tion had been put down by the public voice of indigna-
tion of the civilised world. The persecutions to which
he had alluded as having occurred in England had stig-
matised every one connected with them. The leader of
the Reformation had been blamed in the severest manner.
And a sovereign living in those times had been branded
with the named " Bloody Queen Mary." And although
such barbarities had been perpetrated years ago, it was
no reason why we should nut show our utmost indigna-
tion at the late persecution in Russia. On the contrary,
he thought that it became the civilised portion of the com-
munity to protest loudly against such barbarities, snd so
induce the Government of every country to prevent the
holding of certain religious opinions to be placed in the
same category with those offences which might be con-
sidered as injurious to private individuals in the Govern-
ment of the country. If they allowed transactions of
this nature to be perpetrated abroad, without attempting
to ascertain whether they were capable of proof, and if
proved, without expressing their sorrows and grief at them,
he conceived that we lived in a country where we had not
the advantage of a free course to pursue with respect to
our religious opinions ; and, further, he conceived that
they should not be discharging the duties which they
owed to society at large.—(Hear, hear.) There had
been many opportunities of disproving the statements of
these offences, if the reports were false. The accounts
had spread all over Europe. They had been published
in Rome, when the Emperor himself was present, and
when he had, of course, ample opportunities of dis-
proving them.—(Hear, hear.) And until they hal some
superior information, which he (Mr. Cowper) had not
yet seen, they had no other alternative but to accept the
accounts us true. Now, lie did not necessarily accuse
the Emperor of Russia with being cogaisant of the
varieties of torture to which these unfortunate
nuns had been subjected ; but he thought that
that illustrious individual could not be acquitted
of having at least permitted the exercise of such perse-
cutions in his dominions. He hoped that the House
would not object to his motion, as the venerable Greek
church, which had been charged with these cruelties,
might then have an opportunity of clearing itself from
the charges. He understood that there were authentic
documents in the hands of the Government respecting
this subject, and he trusted that they would not
have any objection to lay them on the table of the
House.—(Hear, hear.)

-23

Mr. T. WYSE seconded the motion, and in so doing
thought that it was well known that the report
of these atrocities, which were of the most ex-
traordinary nature, had been contradicted by the
Warsaw Correspondent of an Edinburgh journal, but
by way of rejoinder to that contradiction, a full detail
had been published at Rome by the abbess of the con-
vent at Minsk, under the sanction of other authentic
authorities. Now, either that document must be a com-
plete fabrication, or the statements of the Warsaw cor-
respondent were untrue. Now he would ask on which
side was the truth likely to be ? The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by making a few further remarks in support
of the motion, which were not very distinctly heard in
the gallery.
S'r R. PEEL—Sir, I am not enabled to communicate
to this House any official dispatches which would throw
a light on the painful subject to which this motion refers.
Her Majesty's Government has not received from its
representative at the Court of St. Petersburg, or from
any other quarter, any official or authentic information
on the subject. The only communication we have re-
ceived is from the British Consul at Warsaw, a most re-
spectable and amiable gentleman, who, seeing the reports
in the French newspapers that the barbarities—for
they can be called by no other name—had been commit-
ted in Poland, thought it his duty to write to the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and state dis-
tinctly that it was a complete error to suppose that any
thine. of the kind had taken place in Poland, and his
confident belief was that the report must have been with
out foundation, or must have been grossly exaggerated.
That is the whole of the information we have received,
consequently it will be impossible for her Majesty's
Government to produce any official information on this
subject which would throw any light whatever upon it. Now
Sir, I should feel the deepest regret if there were any
foundation for these reports. I have certainly a strong
persuasion that nothing of the kind has taken place
either with the sanction or with the knowledge of the
Government of Russia. I understand, from private
communication which I have had with the representative
of the Emperor of Russia at this Court, that when the
Emperor was at Rome, on the matter being mentioned by
the Pope, he expressed great surprise, and stated to the
y, and without his
knowledge ; but a strict inquiry should be instituted.
bPeneprie, entirelythat if
without
anything
of the kind had occurred, it had
his author' t
This fortifies one in the belief that if anything of the
kind had given sanction to these statements, it was with-
out the authority of the Government of Russia, and that
an inquiry would be instituted by that Government into
the facts of the case. Sir, I should therefore strongly
advise every individual Member of this House to suspend
his judgment on this matter. It is very possible, and I
hope that the result may prove it to be so that these re-
ports are without foundation, or have been much e'en-
era
Iteds.tillßntlintriensoturrongy urge you not to set the example
capacity as a branch of the Legisla-
ture,
ftYp minister, or any Govern-
of interference with the acts of another Government. It
me wouldnt, be er impossiblean
y
party,
to for
repress the outbreak of those
feelings which naturally arise on statement of facts like
those to which the lion. Gentleman had referred. I
cannot divest myself of individual feeling,and I declare
that if this statement should be founded in fact, I should
view with the greatest regret such a violation of the
rights of conscience and humanity. But, as a House of
Commons, I advise you on no account, whatever your
private feelings may be, to establish a precedent of inter-
ference with the domestic affairs of other Governments
How have we ourselves been occupied to-night? What has
formed the subject of discussion for four or five hours
ed—there being
before the lion. Gentleman brought forward his motion?
An allegation that inhabitants of this country—the
p
ns subjects bnj
(she
et sr
eo
hf
at
rhgi this
realm—have
against
poverty—
had been employed grinding bones, some of those bones
supposed to have been human bones, and that their sub-
sistence was so scanty, that on their finding bones in a
decomposed state, from which marrow could be ex-
tracted, a general engagement of the parties employed
took place to get possession of one of those bones, and
t theca been
than theem chargeloy of
that the party getting possession of one of those bones
was obliged to hide it, in order to derive some suste-
nance from it. Can anything be worse than that ?—and
yet we should deeply resent it if one of the Chambers of
France thought themselves justified by a regard to prin-
ciple to take any notice of that. surely, we should re.

quire from them that they should place confidence in
the justice of the House o: Commons, and in
the justice of the Executive Government. That con-
fidence would be perfectly justified, for my Right Hon.
Friend has stated that directions have already been
given by him for the suppression of this practice in
every union workhouse. But that is beside the question
—no other Government has a right to interfere in our
proceedings. Ido conceive that nothing would be more
injurious than that we, as our example is looked up to
by other countries, should, prompted by feelings in
themselves natural and laudable, attempt the establish-
ment of a precedent by an interference of this natare in
the domestic concerns of another country. Again 1 must
repeat that I hope every gentleman will suspend his
judgment with respect to the truth of this story. It is
highly probable that it is untrue, or it has been grossly
exaggerated, and I hope they will be individually satis-
fied with the assurance that the Government of Russia
has undertaken to make inquiry into this subject. I
have stated to the Hon. Gentleman that I have no
dispatches to lay on the table. That assurance
will probably induce him to withdraw his motion, and I
must strongly recommend you not to establish a prece•
dent, which I think most injurious, and fraught with
deuger as inducing other powers to act on our example
for worse purposes than could possibly be imputed to us
now,

Mr. COWPER said that after what had fallen from
the Right Hon. Baronet, he should withdraw his motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had stated every thing
that he knew to the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. THOMAS i)UNCOMBE called the attention of
the Right lion. Baronet to tbe address that was pre-
sented to her Majesty immediately after the visit of the
Emperor of Russia to this country. He was sorry to
hear the Right Hon. Baronet mix up the Andover case
with the atrocities perpetrated on the nuns of Minsk.
He considered that it could not be compared with the
atrocities committed under the Russian autocrat. He
hoped, however, that as an extended intercourse was
going on between this country and the court of Russia,
we shall be able shortly to hear that the Emperor of
that country has established an inquiry upon the subject
as they had done in this country.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON stated that the principles of
such a policy as that propounded by the Right Hon.
Baronet did not correspond with the efforts which this
country had made, and was still making, to procure the
abolition of the slave trade.

Mr. P. HOWARD considered that public opinion
should be expressed in a dignified manner upon the sub-
ject. He hoped the time would speedily arrive when all
the subjects under the Emperor of Russia's rule would
have a perfect liberty of conscience in religious matters.
Doctor BOWRING considered that the Emperor of
Russia would be glad for having the opportunity afforded
him of defending himself against these opinicns which
had been gathering around him.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that in consequence of the
lateneness of the hour, he would withdraw his notice
relative to vexatious objections against votes, and would
mould move it on Tuesday next.
Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question of Mr. Philip
Howard, said that he proposed going into committee on
the corn-laws before he went into the committee of
supply.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons,
THURSDAY, MARCH 5.
ANDOVER UNION.
_ _

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a Select Committee
be appointed, to inquire into the administration ofthe Poor-laws in
the Andover Union, and into the management of the Union Work-
house :"—Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add
the words, " and into the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners,
and their late Assistant Commissioner Mr. Parker, in reference to
the two investigations held at Andover, and into all the circumstances
under which the Poor-law Commissioners called upon Mr. Parker to
resign his Assistant Commissionership :"—Question put, " That those
words be there added." The House divided :

MAJORITY-AYES, 92.
Acton, Colonel Fielden, John O'Brien, A. S.
Aglionby, H. A. Ferrand, W. B. Packe, C. W.
Aldam, William Finch, George Palmer, R.
Allix, J. P. Fleetwood, Sir P. Palmer, G.
Arkwright, George Fuller, A. E. Pechell, Captain
Bankes, George Gooch, E. S. Plumridge, Captain
Barnard, E. G. Raiford, Sir H. Bart. Pollington, Viscount
Benett, John Hall, Sir Benjamin Rashleigh, W.
Benet, Philip Balsey, T. P. Rendlesham, Lord
Bentinek, Lord G. Hamner, Sir John Repton, G. W.
Beresford, Major Harris, Hon. Capt. Scott, F.
Berkeley, Grantley Hawes, Benjamin Seymer, H. K.
Bodkin, W. H. Henley, J. W. Sibthorp, Colonel
Borthwick, Peter Hildyard, T. B. Somerville, Sir W.
Bowring, Dr. Ilinde, J. li. Spooner. It.
Browne, W. 'Lindley, Charles Spry,!Sir S.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hudson, George Sienaleld, W: R.
Busfeild, William Hume, Joseph Staunton, Sir G.
Cayley, Edward S. llumphery, Ald. Stuart, Lord J.
Clayton, R. R. pigestre, Viscount Stuart, J.
Collett, John Inglis, Sir It. Tancred, II.:W.
Collins, William Johnson, General Taylor, J. A.
Copeland, AM. Langston, J. H. Thompson, Ald.
Cowper, W. F. Law, lion. C. E. Troubridge, Sir E.
Crawford, W. S. Lawson, A. Waddington, H. S.
Deedes, W. Manners, Lord .T. Walsh, Sir J. 11.
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Matheson, James Williams, W.
Disraeli, B. Miles, W. Yorke, H. R.
Dodd, G. ,Mitealfe, Henry
Duncornbe, T. :Neeld, Joseph
Etwall, Ralph Newdegate, N.
Evans, William Norreys, Sir D.

TELLERS.
Wakley, Thomas
Christie, W. D.

M I NrIF,
iolOtofvrtoeelyrrTiYsi3ifi —erantjrtNOES, 69 .
Acland, T. D. Martin, C. W.
Adderley, C. B. Fitzroy, Lord C. Morpeth, Viscount
Baring, W. P, Morris, David
Bouverie, E. I'. Pakington, J. S.
Bowles, Admiral Glynne, Sir S. Patten, J. W.
Boyd, John Gordon, Hon. Capt. Peel, Sir Robert
Brisco, M. Goulburu, Henry Peel, Jonathan
Bretherton, J. Graham, Sir J. Reid, Colonel
Bruce, Lord E. Greene, Thomas Russell, Lord John
Bruges, W. H. L. Herbert, Sidney Smith, J. A.,
Buller, Chance Hill, Lord M. Smythe, George
Cardwell, Edward Hope, G. W. Strait, Edward
Carew, W. IL Pole Howard, P. H. Sutton, Henry
Childers, J.W. James, William Theslger, Sir F.
Clerk, Sir G. Jervis, John Thornely, Thomas
Cockburn, Sir G. Jocelyn, Viscount Trelawny, J. S.
Corry, henry Johnstone, Hope Trotter, John
Courtenay, Lord Jones, Captain Villiers, Charles
Cripps, William Kelly, Sir Fitzroy Walker, Richard
Davies, D. A. S. Lanibton, 11. Wellesley, Lord C.
Denison, E. B. Lockhart, A. E. Wood, Charles
Dennistoun, John Lockhart, W. TILLERS.
Douglas, Sir C. M`Geachy, F. A. Young, John
Escott, Bickhana Mahon, Viscount Baring, henry

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

THURSDAY, )LARCH 5.

The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and the Bills
ordered to be brought In by the undernamed lien. Members :
Lynn and Ely (Extension to Spalding)—Lord G. Bentinck and Vis•

count Jocelyn.
Lynn and Ely (Extension to March)--Lord G. Bentinck and Via.

count Jocelyn..
Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland Junction—Mr. Lascelles and Mr.

M. Bell.
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction and North Wales
Mineral Companies Amalgamation—Sir W. Wynn and Mr. W.
0. Gore.
London, Bristol, and South Wales—Earl of Shelburne, Mr. 11.
Berkeley, and Mr. Pusey.