The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-21 00:00:00

MR. PARKER'S CASE.

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee,-
1. That the Committee, in considering the circumstances
of the inquiries which took place at Andover, feel called upon
to express their opinion that the practice of entrusting public
and special investigations of complaints arising under the
Poor-law to the assistant-commissioner of the district in which
such complaints have been made, is an objectionable one,
which ought to be discontinued.
2. That the proposal made by the Poor-law Commissioners
to suspend the investigation on the 9th of September, and to
proceed against the master of the workhouse by indictment
upon one set of charges, and by information before justices
upon another, conditionally upon his suspension by the board
of guardians, and upon the willingness of Mr. 'Westlake to
adopt the suggested modes of prosecuting the charges, was
ill-timed and inexpedient, for the following reasons :-
Ist. Because at that time a considerable portion of the case
had been gone through, and the effect of suspending the
further progress of the inquiry, as proposed, until proceed-
ings by indictment could be taken, would have been to pro-
long the uncertainty and excitement already existing upon
the subject.
2d. Because it made the mode of proceeding against the
master, and consequently the time and manner in which he
was to be heard in his defence, dependent upon an act of the
board of guardian?, over which he had no control.
3d. Because it sought to throw a large proportion of the
expenses of prosecuting the inquiry upon Mr. Westlake,who
appears to have done no more than his duty in bringing be-
fore the board of guardians and the Commissioners instances
of misconduct in another officer of the union with which he
had become acquainted, and into which any inquiry should
have been instituted on public grounds, and at the public
expense; and,
4th. Because it implied that the fitness of the master for

his office was the only subject of inquiry, whereas there were
strong grounds for an investigation into the alleged mis-
management of the workhouse, and the abuses stated to
have been practised within it, independently of any charges
which could have been made the subject of indictment or in-
formation.

3. That one unfortunate consequence of having made the
mode of prosecuting the inquiry dependent upon the condi-
tions above referred to, was, that on their failure, the inves-
tigajon was necessarily renewed in its original shape, and the
Commissioners were thus exposed to the charge of vacillation
and want of firmness in their policy.
4. That the overruling the adjournment for five days,
allowed by Mr. Parker, was, under the circumstances of
the case, unnecessary, and therefore injudicious, inasmuch as
it had the appearance of injustice towards Mr. M•Dougal,
who had claimed that time for preparing his defence.
5. That the overruling by the Commissioners of the ad-
journment, and the previous suspension of the inquiry on the
9th of September, appear to have proceeded from a determi-
nation on the part of the Poor-law Commissioners to bring
the inquiry if possible to a close, and so stop the public criti-
cism and excitement which it produced.
6. That in conducting the first inquiry—namely, that on
the subject of bone-crushing, Mr. Parker discharged the duty
confided to him with ability and promptitude, and that his
conduct therein received the approbation of the Poor-law
Commissioners.
7. That as respects the second investigation there is no•
thing in the objections stated by the Poor-law Commissioners
before this Committee to Mr. Parker's mode of conducting it,
which affords a justification of their conduct in calling upon
him to resign.
8. That Mr. Parker's recommendation of Mr. Price as a
temporary master of the workhouse, made in answer to a re-
quest addressed to him by the chairman and other guardians,
did not deserve the condemnation bestowed upon it by the
Poor-law Commissioners.

9. That while they think that Mr. Parker's insertion, in
his letter to Mr. Dodson, on the October, of a paragraph
implying a reflection on the Commissioners, was indiscreet
and inconsistent with his position, still it should be also
borne in mind that the difficult and annoying circumstances
iu which he had been placed might reasonably palliate It
temporary display of irritation.
19. That after a full consideration of the whole case, what-
ever opinion the Commissioners may have entertained with
regard to Mr. Parker's mode of conducting the Andover in-
quiry, or his defective superintendence of the Andover Union,
the time and the manner of Mr. Parker's removal from his
office were such as to give him just cause of complaint, and
were not consistent with a discreet exercise of that power of
dismissing their subordinate officers which the law has en-
trusted to the Commissioners.
MR. DAY'S CASE.

1. That the Committee, after considering the statement
which has been made to them by Mr. Day, and the corre-
spondence on the subject of his resignation, which he has
produced, and the explanations with reference to that corre-
spondence which have been given by the/Poor-law Com-
missioners, are of opinion that the Commissioners have alto-
gether failed to justify their removal of Mr. Day from his
offize of Assistant- Commissioner.
2. That while they readily admit that the nature of the re-
lation between the principal and assistant Poor-law Commis-
sioners, the heavy responsibility attaching to the former for
the general administration of the law,) and the fact that
they are necessarily committed to a considerable extent, by
the acts and expressions of their subordinate officers, com-
bine to render it essential that they shall possess and exer-
cise, on fit occasions, the power ofdismissal vested in them
by the Act of Parliament, the ComMittee think, at the same
, 0,14 e, tat bath poyfer AtiQtad not In eztrcied witbeat warn-

ing or statement of reasons to the officer to be dismissed;
without minutes being kept of all letters written and received
on the subject, and without ( fficial record of the grounds on
which in each case the power of dismissal is excercised.
3. That further, while they are ready to believe that the
conveying a call to resign in the form of a private rather
than in that of an official letter, may in many cases result
from a wish to avoid unnecessary annoyance or injury to the
person about to be dismissed, the Committee are of opinion
that it is, under ordinary circumstances, more just to all
parties concerned, that such communication should be in
official form, bearing with them the authority, and issued
under the responsibility, of the board ; and they cannot ab-
stain, in touching upon this part of the subject, from point-
ing to the inconvenience and irregularity of conveying, as in
the two cases now immediately under consideration, com-
munications of essentially public and official character in
letters written by a single Commissioner, and in form and
language purportirg to be private.
4. That the Committee believe that in both cases the time
of the compulsory resignation has been the means of cruel
injustice—Mr. Parker having been called upon to resign be-
fore the excitement arising out of the Andover inquiry had
subsided, and Mr. Day at the close of the inquiry into the
South Wales disturbances in 1843, was to lead the public to
ascribe blame to both, which the Commissioners acknow-
ledge to be unmerited, and to divert existing public dissatis-
faction from the Poor-law Commissioners by concentrating
it on Mr. Parker and Mr. Day respectively.
.5. That on a review of the conduct of the Commissioners
with respect to the Andover inquiries, and towards Mr. Par-
ker and Mr. Day, the Committee are of opinion that their
conduct has been irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance
with the statute under which they exercise their functions,
and such as to shake public confidence in their administra-
tion of the law.

That the Committee have incidentally in the first instance,
and sub3equentlyfrom a feeling that accused parties ought in
fairness to be allowed to answer charges made against them,
received ranch evidence upon the mode of transacting busi-
ness which has been adopted by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners throughout the existence of the commission, and
upon the insufficiency of the present number of Assistant-
Commissioners for adequate inspection and control, and upon
other important points connected with the administration of
the Poor-law, to which they think it their duty to direct
the special attention of the House;. but upon which, as those
subjects are not included in their order of reference, they
consider themselves precluded from offering any opinions of
their own.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

.From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

TM U RSDAY: A LG. 20.

Messengers from the Lords brought up the following Bills, to
which their Lordships had agreed :
Deodands Abolition (No. 2) Bill —Adverse Claims (Ireland) Bill—
Copyhold Commission Bill—Stock in Trade Bill—Turnpike Acts
Continuance Bill—Loan Societies Bill—Highways Rates Bill—Cale-
donian, Polloc and Govan, and Clydesdale Junction Railways Amal-
gamation Bill —Amendments to Forth and Clyde Navigation and
Bowling Bay Improvement Bill—Commons Incloaure (No. 2) Bill,
without amendment—Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland) Bill
—Legal Quays (London) Bill, witk amendments.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

:From the Votes and Proceedings qf the House of Commons.)

TII L' RS DA Y, AVG. 20.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND CARLISLE BR,INCII
RAILWAY BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords' amendments read; Motion made,
and Question proposed, " That the said amendments be now read a
second time :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now,"
and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day
month :" Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of
the Question :"—Amendment, by leave, withdrawn :—Main Ques-
tion put, and agreed to :—Amendments, as far as Clause A, read a
second thne,:and agreed to :—Clause A, the next amendment, read a
second time :—Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this
House doth disagree with the Lords in the same amendment
Debate arising ;Motion made, and Question put, " That the debate
be now adjourned." The Ilouse divided :
MINOP.ITY—AYES, 17.
Azlionby, H. A. Henley, J. W. Waddington, 11. S.
Autrobus, Edmund Ilurst, lt. IL: Warburton, 11.
Cabbell, 11. It. Oswald, James Wood, Colonel T.
Collins, William Romilly, John
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Smith, J. A. TELLERS.
E,steourt, T. G. Somerset, Lord 0, Wakley, T.
Fielden, John Sutton, Henry Duncombe, T.