§ Mr. FERRAND, seeing the hon. Member for Bolton in his place, begged to give him notice that on Friday he (Mr. Ferrand) would put a question to him relating to the positive contradiction given on the previous evening by the Home Secretary to the solemn declaration made in that House by the late Home Secretary, who had said that Mr. Mott had been dismissed from his office of assistant poor-law commissioner for conduct with which the hon. Member for Bolton was acquainted, that hon. Member having stated on the 1054 28th of Jannary last that he understood that declaration to be sufficient to clear his character as a Member of the House and with his constituents, from the charge brought against him by Mr. Mott.
§ Dr. BOWRINGwould rather the hon. Member would put his question at once, instead of postponing it to Friday.
§ Mr. FERRANDwould then ask whether the hon. Member was prepared, after the positive contradiction of the late Home Secretary's solemn declaration, to take any further steps for the purpose of clearing his own character and the character of his constituents from the charge made against them?
§ Dr. BOWRINGdid not know in what manner his character was involved in anything that had taken place. He would just recall the circumstances to the recollection of the House. He (Dr. Bowring) had had great reason to complain, and so had his constituents, of certain statements made by Mr. Mott, respecting the state of Bolton; he (Dr. Bowring) did complain both publicly and privately; but when he found that Mr. Mott was no longer connected with the Poor Law Commissioners, that he had ceased to be an assistant commissioner, and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), on one occasion had stated that he (Dr. Bowring) was acquainted with the circumstances under which Mr. Mott was no longer employed as assistant commissioner, he (Dr. Bowring) took for granted that this was a recognition by the right hon. Baronet that he was not satisfied with the statement made by Mr. Mott respecting the state of Bolton. He (Dr. Bowring) accepted that as a testimony to his veracity; his constituents were very well satisfied with the general results; and further than that he had really no explanation to give.
§ SIR G. GREYbelieved the hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) had assumed that he gave on the previous evening a solemn contradiction of the previous solemn declaration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham). He (Sir G. Grey) was not aware of the declaration to which the hon. Member referred; but what he (Sir G. Grey) had stated was, that he had been informed by the Poor Law Commissioners that the terms used in the notice of a question put upon the Paper by the hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) for the previous night were not correct; that Mr. Mott was not dismissed for misconduct, but that he was 1055 the commissioner who, under the terms of the Act of Parliament, retired.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMhoped he might be allowed to confirm the precise accuracy of the statements made by the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House. In 1844 there were ten assistant poor-law commissioners; by an Act of Parliament then passed the number was to be reduced to nine. It was necessary for the Commissioners to select one of the ten to retire; and they selected Mr. Mott. He was not dismissed, in the sense in which the hon. Member used that word as a punishment for any offence; but in making a selection with a view to the relative merits of the then ten assistant commissioners, the circumstance to which the hon. Member (Dr. Bowring) had alluded was considered by the Commissioners, and by himself (Sir J. Graham). On the whole he was not satisfied with the report which Mr. Mott made with reference to the state of Bolton, and that circumstance did weigh in the selection they made of Mr. Mott, by which he ceased to be an assistant commissioner.