The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-19 00:00:00

1 (Glasgow, Garnkirk. and Coatbridge Railway Branches)
Eastern Counties Railway (Epping Extension); London and
Blarkwall Railway ( Widening); idiand Railways (Burton-
upon-Trent to Nuneaton Branch and Ashhy Canal Purchase);
Newcastle and Bern•iek Railway; Newcastle and Darlington
Junction Railway (Durham and Sunderland Railway and
Wearrocuth D,,ck Purchase and Branches); Scottish Central
12•+ilu-ay (Crieff Branch).
WEST LONDON RAILWAY (IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION) BILL.
Captain MANGLES moved the third reading of this Bill
which was objected to by
Mr. 'JAS fERMAN, who proposed that the third reading
should be postponed until Monday next, when he should move
that clauses 21, 22, 23, and 24 be omitted.
Captain MANGLES objected, on behalf of the promoters,
to any delay being occasioned in the progress of the bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the postponement
of the Bill was necessary, as litigation was pending between
the City corporation and the company with respect to compen-
sation for the soil of the bed of the river. He thought the
clauses alluded to should be retained.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the principle which the
' Hon. and Learned Gentleman had laid down was quite correct,
but he (Lord John Russell) did not see that any case had
been made out by the Corporation of the City of London, and
it would, therefore, be unfair towards the promoters of the Bill
to postpone the third reading.
After a short conversation, the House divided, when there
appeared—
For the Postponement
For the Motion..
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
IPSWICH AND BURY ST. EDMUND'S RAILWAY.
Earl JERMYN moved—" That the report on the Ipswich
and Bury St. Edmund's Railway (Extension to Ely, with a
Branch therefrom) Bill, and the Thetford, Bury St. Edmund's,
and Newmarket Railway Bill, be taken into consideration upon
Monday next."—Agreed to.
_ _

REPORTS.
The following reports were considered and agreed to :---The
Ardrossan Municipal, Police, and Improvement; the Forth
and Clyde Navigation and 13ow•ling Bay Improvement ; and
the Stockton Gas.
Captain L A YARD presented a petition praying the House
to take into their conAideration the late deduction of 5 per
cent. in the amount of the pensions paid to the out-pensioners
of Greenwich arid Chelsea.

UNION SETTLENIENTS.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from York in favour
of the Union Settlements.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT.
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from Doncaster,
praying that the two Members should be added to Doncaster
who had formerly been returned for Sudbury.
ART UNIONS .
Lord MORPETH also presented a petition from a town in
the West Riding of Yorkshire in favour of the legalization of
art unions.

SEE OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
Mr. FINCH presented a petition from Rutland against the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
RA CO.
Mr. DUNCOTAXINGM BE presentledLWAY a petition from a number of
shareholders in the Dubin! and Armagh Railway, praying the
House to adopt some measures for taxing the costs of engineers
and solicitors in railway Bills.
An HoN. MEMBER. ;resented a petition from Queen's
County, signed by a large body of landlords, praying that ha:f
the rate! should be paid by the landlord and haif by the tenant.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROa'OLITAN
POOR.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the working cusses of
the metropolis, stating that they were pleased to see the in-
quiry which was at ;resent going on into the health of towns;
but that they see with deep regret that in all the Acts which
have been passed this session relating to the supply of water,
there has been no provision for the poor; the Acts hare only
contemplated the supply of water to the richer classes. He
would give notice that he would put a question to the Govern-
ment upon the subject.
Dr. BOWRING moved for a copy of a communication
made by Lord Monteagle to the Board of Trade on the sub-
ject of burdens on land.
MR. SIOTT, THE LATE ASSISTANT POOR-LAW
COMMISSIONER.
In answer to Mr. W. O. STANLEY'S inquiry as to the
truth of some of the allegations which appeared a few days ago
in the Times relative to the conduct of this individual in his
management of a certain private lunatic asylum in the north of
Lancashire,
fir J. GRAHAM said that he was quite willing to produce
copies of any documents which migl-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 Times a few days ago ( but no doubt unintentionally), 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 statr?., in answer to that, that Mr. Mott was per-
sonally unknown to him, and that he had ceased to bear, Assis-
tant Poor-law Commissioner for nearly four years. This error
no doubt arose from the facts which he would state to the
House. Sir. Mott, 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, called the Union Gazette, was pub-
.ished, edited by a gentleman named Marriott, which
contained notices with reference to paupers who had
deserted their families ; and the Board of Guardians of
Netherby. of which he had the honour to be
chairman, applied to the Poor- law Commissioners for permission
to take in this publication for the purposes of the union, and
the Pour-law Commissioners stated in reply that if the in-
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. Mott has 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.
\lott 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
alluded to him as in some way connected with the Tinus
ne spaper, with reference to the subject before the House.—
" No, no.") lie 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 moat material part of the question, namely,
whether any person having a joint speculation in the LunatiLt
Asylum was connectedwith 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. Moffatt held
office under the Poor-law Commissioners as a district auditor.
In reply to the former part of the question he had nothing to
say, as there was no certain information from the Commissioners
at Somerset House. In reply to the second part it appeared
that when Mr. Moffatt 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. Moffatt
had him suspended from his office.
BARRACKS A l'
Colonel RA WD wished to know whether the design for
the enlargement of the barracks at Armagh had been set aside ?
The inhabi ant, of that town had spent much money in pro-
viding accommodation for the officers, and if this design were
to be set aside they would lose large sums. He wished to
them whether the grant was to be continued or not.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that the sum of 5,0001. had
been originally proposed, but it had afterwards been altered to
4,004. 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 authcrities had afterwards reviseci that
decision, and made it a place for a detachment only. It is
sirntily a military question, and on that ground had been de
cided.

SIR ROBERT PEEL'S EXPLANATION.
Upon the order of the day for re.,uming the debate on the
PROTECTION TO LIFE IRELAND BILL,
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Mr. Speaker—Sir, in rising
to move the order of the day for resuming the de-
bate on the Protection to Life Ireland Bill, I deeply
regret that it should be necessary foi me to obstrutt 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 necessasy for me to avail
myself of what perhaps at best is but a doubtful privilege
of making an explanation of matters personally reflecting on
myself ; but deeply as I must regret taking up the time of the
House, and so delaying th• public business, I doubt whether
there is a Member in this House in whose estimation I
would not fall if I did not not avail myself of the earliest op-
portunity of noting the accusations made against me in this
House on Monday evening.—( Hear, hear.)
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

COMMONS' SUMMARY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
After the transaction of private business, and after an
xpianation from Sir JAMES GRAMAM, with regard to
nis alleged patronaze of Mr. MOTT, the Assistant Poor-
law Commissioner, the which he denied.
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose for the purpose of moving the
order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on
he Protection to Life (Ireland) Bill, expressed hi,
regret that it should be necessary for him to avail himselt
.f perhaps a doubtful privilegc,for the purpose of makings
iersonal explanation, but he doubted whether there was
Any Member in whose estimation he would not fall if
he did not avail himself of the earliest opportunity of
noticing the accusations made against him on Monday.
lie thanked the House for the general forbearance to-
wards a public man in defending himself against an accu-
sation which might have been brought forward any time
luring the last 2f years, when the evidence would have
been stronger, and he might have had better evidence
for his defence. Since 1827 there had been great and
fie! ce political conflicts, and he had thought in 1835
that the events of 1825, 1827, and 1829 had ceased to be
remembered. When the attack was made on him,
On Monday he had to send to his country residence
for the whole of the correspondence of the last three
lays ; he had been collecting papers and newspaper
eports to defend himself against these charges
.% hich had been made against his veracity and honour.
lie listened to the charges with the calmness result-
ing from the conscientious conviction that they
were not founded in truth, but yet with the
anxiety naturally resulting from the lapse of
:line which had taken place, and which had
dapiived him of the evidence of those who had heard
what passed. He could now only deal with the evidence
at present brought forward ; and if there were other evi-
denceit ought to have been brought forward before in CO
fairness, if other evidence were brought forward this
evening he would appeal to the House for time to meetpo
it, but with regard to the evidence w
show
that
before the House, if he did not
the charge was utterly without foundation,et discomfiture.
The The Noble Lord, who had been should
retire from the House that night with
Is 2 great
of
and who had been
Parlia-
ment in 1826, 1827, 1828,
andC 82anning9, thought proper to
private secretary to
in 1846, the charge
that be (Sir It, PEEL)
•cl
bring forward
had objected to act with Mr. CANNING in 1827, on the
groud of the opinions of Mr.
CANNING On the Catholic
i
question, he having, n 1828, told Lord LIVERPOOL
that his opinonis on the Catholic question were changed.
The charge was without foundation. He had never wild