The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-18 00:00:00

POOR LAWS.

On the order of the day being read for the second
reading of the Poor-law Administration Bill,
Mr. FERRAND asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether the private defence of the Poor-law
Commissioners to the charges brought against them
before the Andover Union Committee (intitled, " Let-
ters addressed by the Poor-law Commissioners to the
Secretary of State, respecting the transaction of the
business of the Commission, &c., &c., &c.," embellished
with the Royal Arms, and " printed by W. Clowes
and Sons, Stamford-street, for her Majesty's Stationery
Office)," has been printed and circulated with the sanc-
tion of her Majesty's Government ;—if printed and cir-
culated with the sanction of her Majesty's Government,
whether he intends the expense to be defrayed out of
the public purse ;—if printed and circulated at the pub-
lic expense, whether he will lay upon the table of the
House a statement of the expense ? The defence, the
lion. Member asserted, contained most unjust calumnies
and flagrant untruths, and had not only been circulated
amongst Members of that House, but had been for-
warded to different tradesmen throughout the country.
He held in his baud, for instance, a copy which had been
sent to a tradesman in Oxford-street.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
with regard to the first question, the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were called upon by his Right Hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for the Ilome Department to make a
defence in gnawer to certain inquiries which he had
caused to be instituted into their proceedings, and the
Commissioners made what the lion. Gentleman called a
private defence, which was comprised in certain letters
which were laid upon the table of the House. He did
not think, therefore, that the defence could be strictly
called a private one. It was certainly true that the let-
ters had been published and circulated by the Commis-
sioners, and it had been done by the consent of the Go-
vernment. With regard to the second question, he cer-
tainly thought the expense ought to be defrayed out of
the public funds, because, in publishing the correspon-
dence, the Commissioners had only to act in conformity
with their usual practice in such matters.
POOR LAW IRELAND.

Mr. P. SCROPE desired to ask the Secretary fiir
Ireland, whether he was prepared to lay upon the
table of the House any statement as to the progress of
the system of relief in Ireland arider the Temporary
Relief Act 1 He also wished to know, whether there
was any compulsory power to compel the Relief Com-
mittee to do their duty, and in cases where they would
not do so, to discharge them and appoint fresh officers?
The Honourable Member adverted to a charge made
against Lord Berehaven, that there had been great
dstitution on his estate, and that he only subscribed
twenty shillings a month, and that he subsequently
withdrew that relief altogether, confining himself for
ten months to the inside of his demesne, the gates of
which were strictly locked. . _

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that there would be a
report laid upon the table of the House which would
give his Hon. Friend all the information he desired, he
was anxious to say that it was no fault of Sir John Bur-
goyne that a great many evils had occurred, it was quite
true there was great indisposition on the part of many
Relief Commissioners to aid the Government, and the
people themselves desired to return to the ancient system
of road begging. In conclusion he would only say that
from hie knowledge of Lord Berehaven, he would not
believe that he had been guilty of such inhumanity as
that stated by the Hon. Member. That Noble Lord had
expressed to him such a concern for the poor in his
neighbourhood, that he could not come to any other
eonclusion.

Mr. SHAW said that he was suite sure that Lord
Berehaven could perfectly clear himself of such a charge.
And on the part of the Irish proprietors, he would say
that the Member for Stroud took advantage in that
House to say things which he could not jnstify out of it.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that it was rather hard to
blame the Hon. Member for Stroud for his observations
on the Irish landlords, for such a course was so popular,
that it was not to be wondered at.
WARNER'S EXPERIMENT.

Lord INGESTRE said, with reference to an answer
from a Member of the Government respecting Captain
Warner's invention, he would say that he himself was
a witness of the late experiment, and he wholly disagreed
in the unfavourable opinion which was given of it.
NEW POOR-LAW BILL.

Mr. FERRAND, on the order of the day for the second
reading of the New Poor Law Bill being read, asked
the Law Officers of the Crown, by what authority Par.
liament is invested with the right to delegate to any
person, or body of persons, the power of making rules
and orders which shall be as biudinz and authoritative
upon the people of England and Wales as an Act of
Parliament ? If Parliament is not thus authorised, by
what statute can the people of England and Wales be
forced to obey, as law, the rules and orders of the Poor-
law Commi.sioners ? If there be no statute, have not
all parsons committed to prison for disobeying the rules
and orders of the Poor-law Commissioners been illegally
deprived of their liberty?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that Parliament
had an inherent right to delegate its power to any person
or persons in such a manner as should be binding upon
the people. He mentioned courts of law, and other
tribunals, as instances where this power had been
exercised.
Sir JOHN WALSH desired to ask the Member for

Stroud whether he had communicated with Lordßere

haven relative to the charge he brought against him.
Mr. P. SCROPE replied that he had not, and that it
was objected to mention anonymous cases. He would
be quite happy if Lord Berehaven was enabled through
his means to justify himself, for the present was not the
first time such charges had been made.