The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-23 00:00:00

THE POOR REMOVAL ACT.

Captain PECHELL asked the Commissioner of Poar-
laws, whether in consequence of the recent decision in
the Court of Queen's Bench having upset the opinion
given by the law officers of the Crown upon the con
struction of the Poor Removal Act, it is intended to
cancel the instructions (founded on that opinion)
issued to the beards of guardians on the 20th da) of
October, 1846; and whether provision will be made
for the repayment to unions and parishes of the expenses
incurre d by them respectively in the maintenance
of poor belonging to other parishes. whose relief
was withdrawn in consequence of those instructions.
The question was put in consequence of a communica-
tion;tromithe guardians of the Gosport Union to those of
Brighton, which necessitated an application to the Poor-
law Commissioners, requesting their advice as to how
those guardians could obtain the repayment of certain
expenses which had been incurred, and the reply of
the Poor-law Commissioners was that no past
accounts could be opened.
Mr. BAINES said that, in replying to the question,
to the subject of which the Hon. and Gallant Member
had just called the attention of the House, he could
recapitulate the circumstances under which the question
had arisen. Shortly after the passing of the Poor-law
Amendment Act, the 9th and 10th Vic., c. 66, the Board of
Poor-law Commissioners had received several applications
inquiring what was to be understood by the terms of
certain clauses, and how under certain difficulties they
were to act. In order that the several cases might be
properly treated, the Poor-law Commissioners submitted
the matter to two gentlemen high in their profession
—the law officers. of the Crown. Having received
their opinion, they immediately forwarded ;it to the
several unions throughout the kingdom. But, after the
delivery of that opinion, a decision had been come to
in the Court of Queen's Bench, which was at variance
with the opinion previously expressed respecting the
construction of the clauses of the Act by the law officers
of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) That decision was of
course at present the law of the land • (Hear)--and he
(Mr. Baines) and the other Poor-law 'Commissioners had
lost no time in forwarding a proper notice of it to the several
unions, and drawing the :particular attention of the
guardians to it by every means in their power. With
regard to the letter which had caused the question of the
Hon. and Gallant Member, he knew of no clause which
authorised the repayment of any expenses under those
particular circumstances.
SEIZURES UNDER THE CUSTOMS DUTIES.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS moved for and obtained an
order for a return of the number of seizures of silks,
lace, ribbons, embroidery, and shawls made at the Custom
House of London, from the Ist day of January,
1847, to the Ist day of January, 1849, on the plea
of under valuation of entry; stating the kind of
goods seized, the amount of entry, valuation of such
seizures, the amount paid by the Custom House to the
importers of the goods, the amount and proceeds of the
sale of such goods, stating the number of lots into
which they were divided for sale, the several days upon
which they were put up for sale, and whether sold or
bought in, or postponed, in each case, and theexpenses in-
curred on such sales: and, balance or-account, shoWing
the benefit or loss to the Custom House department,,
and the amount paid in each case. to the seizing officer.

,THE WAR IN THE PUNJAUB.
' Mr. G. THOMPSON said he had a question to put to
the Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury, when
The SPEAKER intimated that the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) was not present.
Mr. G. THOMPSON would then address himself to
the Right Hon. Baronet the President of the Board of
Control, and was proceeding to make some remarks, when
The SPEAKER again interposed, to say that he
could only state the circumstances which had induced
the luestion, and then proceed to his inquiry.
Mr. G. THOMPSON then said he wished to ask
whether, as her Majesty's Ministers have deemed it
their duty to lay before the House a Blue Book of 378
pages, relating to a rebellion in the island of Ceylon in
July last, they do not consider it equally their duty
to lay before the House the papers relating to
the war in the Punjaub, described by her Majesty in her
gracious Speech fromithe Throne, as a'• rebellion," which
war has been going on since April, 1848, and has neces-
sitated the calling of an army into the• field of not less
than 120,000 men, including camp followers, and in-
volving an extraordinary expenditure of not less than
five millions sterling a year.
Sir J. C. HOBLIOUSE said that the question intended
for his Noble Friend, but which had been put to him,
was couched in an unusually argumentative form.
With regard to the question itself he must be allowed
to remark that the rebellion in Ceylon, had terminated,
but that in the Punjaub was still going on ; and it was
not usual to lay the papers before the House till the
affair to which they related bad been concluded. As
to there being an army of 120,000 men, besides carnp:fol •
lowers. of . whom he knew nothing, ho must tell the
Hon. Gentleman that the army was not composed of
half that number, while be trusted the information of
the Hon. Gentleman as to the expense of the rebellion
was not correct.

Mr. G. THOMPSON gave notice that on Monday he
should move an address to the Crown for the production
of the papers, and then he would take an opportunity
of justit)ing the question he had just put.
RAJA OF SATTARA.

Mr. HUME wished to ask the Hon. Baronet
what provision bad been made fur the family of the late
Raja of Sattara.

Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE had already stated the
amount, while the reason it bad not been paid was
simply that the legal representatives (.1 the Raja had re-
fused to receive it.—(Hear and laughter.)
PENSIONERS.

Mr. HUME gave notice that on Monday he should
move for an alphabetical list of all persons receiving
public money above 501. a year.

IRISH RETURNS:
Mr. A, STAFFORD, in the absence of the Secretary
for Ireland, wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the
Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of some
importance to Ireland. It related to certain gross inac-
curacies in the returns which had been presented to the
House on the subject of Irish distress. In these returns
there were no less than seven inaccuracies of simple
addition, one of them to the extent of 5001.,
while another represented 6d. and nothing to
make 4d.—(Hear and laughter.) He wished to know if
Government were prepared to lay amended returns on
the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair *at Four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.
The following Railway Bills were read a second time: 1
IRISH POOR-LAW. Birmingham and Oxford Junction (Purchase of the Strat- I
i On the motion of Mr. CLEMENTS, a copy of al
ford-upon-Avon Canal Navigation).
r
Forest of Dean and South Walea (Amendment of Acts as I correspondence between the Commissioners for adminis.
to Charges on Forest of Dean Railway and Branches—No. 2). : tering the laws for relief of the poor in Ireland and in
North Staffordshire (Amendment 'of Acts). i England, relative to the removal of John M'Coy from
Stirling and Dunfermline (Deviation of Branch to Alloa I Newcastle•upon-Tyne to Armagh, including the opinion
Harbour; Diversion of certain Works; Extension of Time :
1 of counsel (if any) thereon, was ordered.
for completing Line and taking Land; and Amendment of The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
Acts).
that the statements referred to by the Hon. Member
The undernamed Bills were likewise read a second time:
Company. . were made by the vice guardians of unions in Ireland,
Great Central Gas Consumers
' and that they had been printed in the state they had
Blusselburgh Police and Improvement.
been received by the Government. The mistake, if any,
Norfolk Estuary (Amendment of Acts and Powers of Con-
tribution by the Eau Brink Commissioners of Drainage, and had not been made by any officers of the Government,
by the Corporation of King's Lynn s. but by parties who had the best means of information on
Rock Life Assurance Company, ' the subject.
SECEDING CLERGYMEN. Mr. STAFFORD asked the Right Hon. Gentleman
Mr. P. HOWARD ' presented a petition from Carlisle if he would promise to have the report amended and laid
praying for full civil and religious liberty to seceding again on the table of the House?
clergymen. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition to the same effect. Hon. Gentleman had nearly assumed that it was wrong;
Mr. BRIGHT presented a similar petition from Ash-
but if he could point out any inaccuracy he would have
ton-under-Lyme and another place,
it amended. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was
VENTILATION OF THE NEW : HOUSES OF not now prepared to say whether correct or false.
PARLIAMENT. - Mr. STAFFORD said he should have no difficulty iii-
Mr. BROWN presented a petition from Dr. Reid, proving that 6d. and nothing did not make 4d.
complaining that his plan of ventilation hod been ob• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
struated by :Mr. Barry, and praying for inquiry. there might, perhaps, be a mistake in the printing, and
THE MARRIAGE LAW. the 0 might have been substituted for 10d., in which
presented a petition against any
Mr. BROADLBY cases there would remain 4d.
alteration of the marriage law. GENERAL RATE IN IRELAND.
CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF SALISBURY. Sir JOHN WALSH asked the First Lord of the
Mr. S. HERBERT presented a petition from certain Treasury whether it was the intention of her Majesty's
ecclesiastical officers in the cathedral church of Salisbury, Government to introduce a Bill to empower them to
stating that their stipends, which had been fixed at 201. levy a general rate throughout Ireland in aid of the
a year in • the reign of James 1., were insufficient for Per's-rate, without waiting for 'the production of any
their proper maintenance, and praying for the augmen- evidence on that subject from the Committee on the
tation of those stipends. Irish Poor-law.
PRIYILEGE, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Government did
Mr. OSBORNE said he bad to bring before the not intend to introduce any measure on the subject
House a question of privilege.
until the Committee had made their report.
He said be knew but
one
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
custom respecting the attendance of Members of the On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the House went
House on Committees of the House. lie had always un- into Committee on this Bill.
derstood those Committees were open to the attendance On the first clause being read,
of Members of Parliament during their deliberations. He Mr. V. SMITH rose to propose an amendment, to the
understood that the members of the Irish Poor-law Corn P effect that it is expedient to abolish all oaths save
mittee had come to a resolution to prevent the attend- those of fidelity and allegiance. He said he wag per-
ance of Members of Parliament, who were not members fectly ready to admit, that there should be no disquali-
of the Committeeeat the deliberations of the Committee. fication in religion, to the holding of civil offices, land,
Under these circumstances he begged to know whether therefore, on the present occasion he was
they were justified in adopting that course? prepared to give his vote as he had during the
The SPEAKER said that, according to the past in favour of __the admission of Jews into Parliament.
rules of the Rouse, every Member of the House However, when they were taking the subject into their
I
, was privileged to attend Select Committees of consideration, and especially the recommendation of the
the House, unless that Committee wasa Committee Committee on " Oaths," he thought it would not be out
of Secrecy ; but ' during the deliberations of a of place if the attention of the House was directed
Committee it was in its power to order Members who to the nature of the oaths which were taken by
were present, but not on the Committee, to leave the the members of different religious persuasions
room ; and there had been instances where Members at the table. Instead of merely dealing with one par-
had not left the room, and where the Committee had ticular oath with a view to the admission into that
applied to the Rouse to interfere to compel them. But House of the Member of a particular sect, he thought in-
under other circumstances a Member had a perfect right stead of " chopping and altering " that the wiser course
to attend. would be to have but one form, and that an exceedingly
Mr. OSBORNE asked if he was to understand that simple one as he entertained much objection to a
the Committee had the power to exclude him? multiplicity of oaths. He thought, therefore, that
The SPEAKER said they had not unless they re- the House would agree with him that if they
ceived such powers from the House. could simplify the oaths taken by a Member
Mr. BRIGHT said that so far there had been on taking his seat, they should be performing a good
no evidence taken before the Committee ; and he public work and elevating the character of that House.
bad always understood that whilst a Committee were —((tear.) He did not wish to throw any stigma upon
discussing the resolutions which were under their coy.- the proceedings of the House, but he confessed
sideration, and whilst they were dividing upon those when ho heard Honourable Members talk of
resolutions, Members bad not the right to be in the the solemnity of the oath taken by Members,
room. For himself, he (Mr. Bright) wished the line that he could not agree with them. He entertained en
had not been so strictly drawn. I entirely contrary opinion. The hurrying of Members to
Mr. OSBORNE said he begged leave to give notice the table at the beginning of a new Parliament to take
to the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Osborne) should. go the oaths, whilst Members around were talking upon
down to the Committee during its sittings. . different subjects was not to his mind a solemn proceed-
Sir J. YOUNG Said he had:understood that It had ing, arc he did not think those who took a part in it or
been always the practice in Committees for Gentlemen beheld it were impressed e ith a conviction that it was
who were not members* of the Committee to absent so. There was no argument against simplifying there
themselves, when the Committee were deliberating, or oaths to say, that because they were settled in the year
when a division was taking place: 1829, and that twenty years had since elapsed, it was
The SPEAKER,—The Hon. Baronet 'lists correctly not now expedient to remodel them. Though he had not
stated the fact.--(Hear, hear.) ' - '''''r, spoken to any member of the Roman Catholic faith,
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said the course:taken this with respect to the oaths which they were called upon
morning in the Irish Poor-law Committee had Men only to take, he thought be 11145 correct when he paid that
...: 1
• , ,-1,....• .
• 'Estf'•‘,L,