The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-22 00:00:00

servants of the Board, who were responsible for their
conduct. They alone appointed them, and it must be left at
their discretion either to retain or dismiss them, other-
wise they would never obtain a board of respectable gentle-
men to perform the duties. He was exceedingly sorry
that he could not agree in the character Mr. Murray gave
of himself; he would rather not then enter into a itaterfient of
the facts of the case, as it might be their pleasure to order a
full inquiry, at which he would rejoice. If the petitioner's
private character had suffered from his dismissal by the
Board, it was his own fault, for the Commissioners
invariably kept from the public view any of the reasons, until
they were challenged or forced into it,by the parties themselves.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said he held in his hand a
letter from the Secretary to the Board to the petitioner, in
which it was stated that the only reason for his discharge was
that of violating a rule laid down by the Commissioners, in
writing and publishing a political pamphlet. He did not ques-
tion the discretion which must necessarily be placed in the
hands of the Commissioners, but it was a pity that they should
discharge him for one reason when they had others behind.
After a few words from Lord RADNOR and the Mar-
quis of LANS DO WNE the petition was referred to the
Committee on Irish Education.

The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from Nor-
thumberland, St. Luke's, Chelsea, Derby, Bradford, and
Manchester, praying for an alteration in the Poor Law Amend-
ment Act. One of the petitions complained, that in the work-
houge of the Worcester Union the members of the Church were
confined on a Sunday, while the members of any dissenting
Chapel were allowed to go out. He gave notice that on
Thursday next he would move for a copy of any order made
by the Poor Law Commissioners relative to the subject.
Lord ELLENBOROUG El said paupers who were very
importunate to go out to Church came in in a much worse
condition than vivn they went oar.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM and the Duke of RICHMOND
urged upon the Rev. Prelate the propriety of inquiring whe-
ther any such order was in existence.
The Bishop of EXETER said he had heard several reasons
against his motion, but he would still have the honour of sub-
mitting it to the House.
The Duke of RICHMOND then moved that the Clerk
of the Board of Guardians at Worcester be requested
to send up a copy of any regulation made by the
Board of Guardians, relative to the attendance of the paupers
at worship on a Sunday.—Agreed to.
It having been stated that Thursday might be otherwise en
gaged, the Rev. Prelate gave his notice for Tuesday week.
Lord D UNC ANN ON postponed the Committee on the Dub-
lin Police Bill, from Thursday till Tuesday. He said inquiries
had been directed into the disgusting conduct said to have
taken place at an execution lately in Gloucester. The She-
riff had made inquiries into the subject—he had examined
forty witnesses, and not of them had seen anything at all dis-
graceful or indecorous. The paragraph in which it had ap-
peared was wholly without foundation.
The Duke of RICHMOND was happy to hear the state-
ment, and hoped that the enquiry would tend to keep the
lowest functioners of the law in something like decent order.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the country was
obliged to the Noble Duke for bringing forward the question,
and he had no doubt that it would do good. He had seen the
evidence taken on the question, and he fully concurred in the
opinion of the Noble Viscount, that the paragraph in question
was without any foundation.
Lord SE AG RAVE had also seen the evidence in question,
but he had come to a different conclusion. He thought the
paragraph overcharged, but not without foundation. It was
clear to him that there had been much levity at the execution.
The House then adjourned.