The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-24 00:00:00

SUN,THE

The SPEAKER said that, according to the
rules of the House, every Member of the House
was privileged to attend Select Committees of
the House, unless that Committee was a Committee
of Secrecy ; but during the deliberations of a
Committee it was in its power to order Members who
were present, but not on the Committee, to leave the
room ; and there had been instances where Members
had not left the room, and where the Committee had
applied to the House to interfere to compel them. But
under other circumstances a Member had a perfect right
to attend.
Mr. OSBORNE asked if he was to understand that
the Committee had the power to exclude him?
The SPEAKER said they had not unless they re-
ceived such powers from the House.
Mr. BRIGHT said that so far there had been
no evidence taken before the Committee ; and he
had always understood that whilst a Committee were
discussing the resolutions which were under their con-
sideration, and whilst they were dividing• upon those
resolutions, Members had not the right to be in the
room. For himself, he (Mr. Bright) wished the line
had not been so strictly drawn.
Mr. OSBORNE said he begged leave to give notice
to the Hon. Member that he (Mr. Osborne) should go
down to the Committee during its sittings.
Sir J. YOUNG said he had understood that it had
been always the practice in Committees for Gentlemen
who were not members of the Committee to absent
themselves, when the Committee were deliberating, or
when a division was taking place.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Baronet has correctly
stated the fact.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said the course taken this
morning in the Irish Poor-law Committee had been only
the same course that had been taken since he had been a
member of any Committee of the House.
LEGAL EDUCATION. _ _

Mr. EWART gave notice that on an early day he
would put a question to the Attorney-General respecting
legal education.
NEAPOLITAN ARMY IN SICILY.

Mr. BANKES gave notice that he would, on Tuesday
next, move for copies of certain information received by
the Government respecting the Neapolitan army in
Sicily.
THE POOR REMOVAL ACT. _ _

Captain PECHELL asked the Commissioner of Poor-
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 boards of guardians on the 20th day of
October, 1846; and whether provision will be made
for the repayment to unions and parishes of the expenses
incurred 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:fromithe 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 repaythent of certain
expenses which had been incurred, and the reply of
the Poor-law Commissioners was that no past
accounts could be opened.
Me. 1.3Ar.773 z=vid thq, in r77!yir tn the cr:pf.!!;_‘m,
to oi It-11kb tlw Hon. end cir,3lfrnt !In:UT
juit c,11,c. the “ti.sntiou of ths
re,capitulAte the eireu3nr;aucc;s under 7.itie'etlll3 surst.ion,
had arisen. Shortly after the pe.7.aing 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 or 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 the expenses in-
curred on such sales: and, balance of account, showing
the benefit or loss to the Custom House department,
and the amount paid in each case to the seizing officer.