The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-20 00:00:00

C 01: tiIISSIO,NER.

In answer to Mr. W. 0. STANLEY'S iniuiry as to the
truth of some of the allegations which appeared a few days ago
in the Times relative to the conduct of th,4 individual i❑ his
matia2ement of a certain private lun•scic asylum in the north of
Lancashire,

sir J. GRAHAM said that he was quite willing th produce
copies of any documents which migi- t have reached his
hands in reference to Mr. Mott during the time that
he was employed by the Poor-law Commissioners, which was
now four years ago. A most gross statement had appeared in
the Tunes a few days ago (but no doubt wsintentionady), in
which it was represented that Mr. Mott some years ago com-
menced a newspaper, under his ( Sir J. Graham's) patronage.
He had to state. in answer to that, that Mr. Mott was per-
sonally unknown to him, and that he had ceased to bean Assis-
tant Poor-law Commissioner for nearly four years. This error
no doubt arose from the facts which he would state to the
House. Mr. Aloft, on the 11th of March, 1843, became the
editor of a weekly paper which was called the Poor-law Guide.
It was printed, he believed, by Messrs. Bradbury and
Evans, of London, and he believed that it was
edited by Mr. Osborne, who also resided in London.
This was in March, 1843. On the Ist of October, 1843,
another periodical, salted the Union Gazette, was pub-
lished, edited by a gentleman named Marriott, which
contained notices whh reference to paupers who had
deserted their families ; and the Board of Guardians of
Netheeiy, of which he had the honour to be
chairman, applied to the Poor- law Commissioners fur permission
to take in this publication for the purposes of the union, and
the Poor-law Commissioners stated in reply that if the
information was considered necessary they were at liberty
to take in this publication, and to charge it upon the rates.
He again repeated that Mr. Mutt had ceased to be a Poor-
law Commissioner for four years, and he could not possibly
see how a statement so unfounded could be published. Mr.
Mott was at no time the editor of a newspaper under his (Sir
James Graham's) patronage.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said the Right Hon. Baronet had
Outlet-1 to him as in some way connected with the Tinos
newspaper, with reference to the subject before the House.—
" No, no.") He begged to say that he had nothing whatever
to do with the article in question.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said the Right Hon. Baronet had omit-
ted to answer the most material part of the question, namely,
whether any person having a joint speculation in the Lunatic
Asylum was connected with the Poor-law Commission?
Sir J. GRAHAM repeated that Mr. Mott had no longer
any connexion with the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. CHRISTIE wished to know whether Mr. Mott held
office under the Poor-law Commissioners as a district auditor ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, in reply, it appeared
that when Mr. Mott was introduced Mr. Oliver had certain
districts appointed to him, but it having appeared to the
guardians that the office of auditor was unnecessary, Mr. Mott
had him suspended from his office.

BARRACKS AT ARMAGH.
Colonel RA %M ON wished to know whether the design for
the enlargement of the barracks at Armagh had been set aside ?
The inhalwants of that town had spent much money in pro-
viding accommodation for the offi3ers, and if this design were
to be set aside they would lose large sums. He wished to
know whether the grant was to he continued or riot.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that the sum of 5,0001. had
been ori,inaily proposed, but it had afterwards been altered to
4.000/. for the enlargement of the baracks at Armagh, under
the impression that it was to be the chief depot of the dis-
trict. But the military aw.hr rities had afterwards revise,' that
decision, and made it a place for a detachment only. It w,,s
simply a military question, and on that ground had been de-
cided.
SIR ROBERT PEEL'S EXPLANATION.
On the order of the day being read for re u
-
THE PROTECTION TO LIFE
(IRELAND)ningthe BILL, debate on
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—
Mr.eaker—Sir, in rising
for S-p resuming the to move the order of the day
de-
bate on the Protection to Life ( Ireland) Bill, I deeply
regret that it should be necessary for me to obstruct for one
moment the public business by taking up the time of the
House with any personal matter with regard to myself.
I deeply regret that it should be necessary for me to avail
myself of what perhaps at best is but a doubtful privilege,
of making an explanation of matters pertooallv refle.ting en
-„,,1 ; :" I ' k. 1.4; t'oe titer of the
House, and so delaying the public business, I doubt whether
there is a Member in this House in whose estimation I
should not fall if I did not avail myself of the earlieti op.