The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-04 00:00:00

PRACTICAL JOKES IN THE ARMY.

Mr. STANLEY asked the Under-Secretary for War
if it was true that Serjeant Brodie of the Ennirkillens
was placed under arrest for preventing a duel being fought
between two officers of his regiment, Cornets Baum-

garten and Evans ; it Serjeant Brodie was reprimanded
for his interference by orders of the Conlmao,der-in-
Chief ; and if there was any objection to place copies of
the charge preferred against Serjeant Brodie, and the
terms of the reprimand sent from the Horse Guards ?
Mr. PEEL said he understood the reason why Ser-
jeatt Brodie was placed under arrest was disrespectful
conduct towards his superior officer ; and no reprimanc
had been sent to him from the Horse Guards.
INDIAN OFFICERS.
In reply to Mr. OTWAT,
Mr. V. SMITH said he believed, by the announce-
ment in the Gazette of Tuesday, granting the same rank
to Indian officers as officers in the Royal Array, her
Majesty would be entitled to command the services of
Indian officers in any part of her dominions or else where.
EDUCATION. .
In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON,
Lord PAL MERSTON said he feared he could not
promise to name any Government day before Whieum-
tide to resume the debate on the Education Bill, consis-
tently with the urgent and pressing business of we
country ; but the Government would give him the
earliest possible day after the Whitsuntide recess.
In reply to Mr. HADFIELD,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should postpone the bill
which stood in his name till the discussion on the bill of
the right hon. bart. should be brought to a conclusion.
In reply to Mr. M. GIBSON, who wished -to know if
the three bills ma education could be sent to a select
committee,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought it desirable that
each bill should be considered on its own merits before
they were sent to a select committee.
Sir J. PAKINGTON expressed bis willingness to
have his bill submitted to a select committee:
CONSTITUTION FOR VICTORIA.
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that on Thursday
next he should move for leave to enable her Majesty to
bring in a bill for the purpose of granting a constitution
for the colony of Victoria.
POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. E. ELLICE moved the second reading of the
above bill. In the course of his remarks he stated that,
at present, poor relief in Scotland was limited to the
aged, the sick, and the infirm, the able-bodied pauper
being in no way entitled to parochial relief.' The act
of 1845 in no way interfered with this limitation, and it
left the pauper exactly where he was, so far as the defi- 1
nition "pauper" was concerned. But it established an
entirely new system of parochial relief in Scotland. It
established parochial boards, parochial rates, and gave
power to build workhouses. It empowered the board
to appoint an inspector to visit the paupers twice aryear,
and to take care that they should be provided for ac-
cording to the intention of the act. It also required
that those inspectors should report to the local board,
which should in turn report to the central authorities.
In short, it afforded ample machinery for benefiting
paupers, if that machinery were properly put in motion.
But it went still further. It took away from the pauper
the right of appeal he had to a superior court of law, and
it interposed a central authority between the pauper and
his legal appeal, and no pauper could appeal to the court
against the parochial authorities unless he had a certifi-
cate signed by that central authority affirming that the
pauper had a good case of appeal ; and it was conse-
quently obvious that the real court of appeal was
placed in the hands if the central authority. This
central authority to which he alluded was called
the Board of Supervision ; and if he could prove that
this board had not acted up to its duty, and that the
pauper had been defrauded of his just right and privilege,
and that he was in fact in a worse position than he was
previous to the passing of the act of '45 ; if he could
prove that the board had, so far at least as the inajority
of the population was concerned, entirely failed in its
objects ; if he could prOve that paupers had no ade-
quate means of redress against injustice on the
part of local authorities, and that no machinery
whatever was in force or was ever attempted to be in-
stituted locally to see that the act was properly carried
into operation, or to render the pauper secure in his abie
lities under the law; If he could show that the pauper had
been treated with absolute contempt, that his cenap,aints
had been totally disregarded ; if be could show that at
the eleventh hour, when serious consequences hest en-
eue,l, owing to i.o interference having been taken in due
time, and that circumstances of a different character
had compelled an inquiry to be at least made ;
if he could prove that the reports made to that
board were full of misrepresentations, which in-
duced the Government to believe that the act was in
full operation, and that facts Ind been suppressed
which, if stated, would have proved totally the contsary
1 imeression. If he could prove all this be thought he si'ouki
succeed in making out a good case for the interference
of the house, for its interference in a cause of humanity
to protect the pauper from a state of things which was
disgraceful in a civilised country. (Hear, 'war.)
Now, some of these facts he could prove Loin
returns made to the house and others upon the authority
of individuals whose integrity and veracity were bey and
question. Confinin; himself, now, exclusively to the
Hi;hlandA of Scotland, he might state to the hoi...se
that according to a return which he held in ids
hand, in the case of three towns, between the years
1847 and 1851 no local inspection or local inquiry ,vbat-
ever into the working of the poor-law was made. (Bear).
In the absence of that local inspection, what oicele of
appeal was left open to the pauper. It was, of course,
never intended to leave him entirely in the lime&
of the local board, because the contemplation of the act
was to protect the pauper against injustice on the part
of local authorities who were ratepayers, and conse-
quently were obviously interested in getting off us
cheaply as possible. Now, if, for instance, a pauper
was denied relief altogether, whatsatio)ptehael had ho against
that denial ? His only appeal wa.
eel sherifftho s e
v.m,aoBu
rnrtntuuovoeuds
andari j sacsatthteerehdo tie m
a districts,st tbhee anweaarrr
hon. gentleman read an
The
Bfiotra considerabletenot only
mdtlCiehtetriiMeeesa;nTtdoi physical ea h
which
aesxsertvtiteoeuni,d but in
that, in
msoma some expense. se.
in which it w
extractone
f instancero a pauper had to
la•
miles to reach the nearest sheriff
him. Again,ad go no less than 200
flitted to be entitled to parochial relief,.
lieu of that a penny a week was given ,
..
supposing a pauprjr hllias (alppbeaeeinbte.
'mans of redress open to him, was an appeal
Court
P„aiPererwhaa,:lf,tverswarodfs
of Su ervision, at Edinburgh. But before t .
hini the e.
could make P
in,,,,, t that appeal, he must
tial,s4
he."l:adf(b)oiniaeverrirnetaedpaper, to fill up particular P his
so that the
that up with
apply to th-etolul'eet
u_'!rded thither,t o b e
forwarded
ca se
throughatnhdteo satthmheaebtionasrppder'ciqniotfreictei
complains se h'rtunata pauper had no security that his
means of jure esed,
tchhethe proper quarter. In fact
, taonhfvooal:oltgachhbaetll,e
1.
amen:pet
eZac;:ia ii. at 0 pauper in Scotland had no
!.poor 11;4'1 thaati.Vsein Having now, he
course was no supervision
Whoouuzl,,dpeepaeiatkilL.tia:trnaZtehrY ;17.0 te leii;ea4teliae_reoi:e:r.
to e„erarotuld next call the at-
, tentionhear _
owfhicthhe a, , peeper had not an
had stated genepreaclilayi
bring forward R caßie: w"
but he trusted the house wouldTet :1-Ice4ulriee.te:ii
lay before them as the best indi:.cev thesreeniTstao a s
which the poor-law was ailminietaetrie°anmie°f ath° ein7"€ll')eld
referring to individual MCI irt confirmation of hie . 1 -
ice
- arie:s_ _
1:;21::::''l I'7l