The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-09 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION. a, the centralization of authority. Ile knew well the :Noble Lord had always acted on different principles. Fe (Mr. D'lsraoli) believed the liberties of this coon I: y were mainly dependent on the great dominion of principle and duty. He thought the tendency of mo dern legislation was unfavourable for this great end. It was for this reason he opposed the pauper legislation of the present Government ; he thought it was founded on principles peculiarly adverse to the cbarseter and siplrit of the nation ; he thought they bad originally founded it upon mere financial considerations, and he believed that in this point of view it had utterly failed. Ile thought it had produced an immense mass of liti gatioa, and he believed that, more even than the tarbulent spirit of party politics, it was the pri mary and secret cause of popular outbreaks.—( Hear.) Believing that they should consult the character of the +people in per circumstances when legislating for that ease, he felt bound to move that the Bible be read a second time that day six months. Mr. IVAKLEY in seconding the motion, begged leave to express his surprise that the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, should have proposed to the House a Bill of such vast importance without ex plaining to them fully and efficiently the grounds upon which the proposition was made.—( Hear, hear.) 'file Bill proposed by the Noble Lord consisted of two dis tinct portions—the first part was to continue the Com mission for ten years, and the second portion was a provisior framed for the purpose of giving to the Coos missioriers such powers as they thought they might re quire.—( Hear, hear.) The House was perfeely in the dark as to the principles upon which the Bill was first proposed. When the Bill was originally proposed by Lord Althorn, he believed it was seconded by his lion. Friend, the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, (Mr. Hume) and he said he believed the very object and principle of the Bill was to make a distinction between vice and profligacy among the poorer population, and those who were reduced to a state of destitution front misfortune. It that were the principle of the Bill who was there who would dare to condemn it? If such were its principle, who would dare to soy that it was obnoxious to the spirit of .Englishmen—who would dare to say that it could iiijure either the rate payer or the pauper? But his lion. Friend was not allowed to remain long in his error. Even that night, when the discussion arose on tl:e introduction of the Bill, he was undeceived, for then the Noble Lord, with that manliness and noble spirit which always characterized him, even when he w.s in error—he then unhesitatingly avowed what was the principle of the law ; and what was that principle ? —a principle which had been openly avowed, in the British House of Commons by the first Minister of the Queen is that House—avowed unblushingly is the great empire of England, boasting of its army and navy—of its military and maritime power, and of its mercantile and commercial resources. He begged the attention of his lion. Friend to the declaration, be cause it was calculated to remove from the public lased everything in the shape of delusion and miseon ception. The Noble Lord said he differed much from his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for Teienrnouth, who thought a distinction ought to be made in favour of merit. He (Lord J. Russell) thought it most unwarrantable that any Board should pretend to say who was meritorious. All the public could do in the shape of relief was to adhere to the wise and good pro vision of the Act of Elizabeth, that no poor person should be allowed to starve.—(Cheers.) Those chests came from the Liberal side of the House.—(Cheers and a laugh from the Toni •s.) He that morning con suited " Johnson's Dictionary," for the mean leg of the word " liberal," and he found it explained as meaning " magnanimous, generous, and the opposite to parsimonioes."—(Cheers and laughter from the Tories.) But what could be more parsimonious than this Bill ? Its object was that the poor should not starve—that they should be shut up in prisons —that they should receive the least possible quantity of food sufficient to sustain life—that they should be flogged once a fortnight, and that they should be clothed in a dress bearing the stamp of degradation, only that they should not be allowed to starve.—( Hear, hear.) He had never been a party man—(Hear, and a laugh)— he hid never fastened himself to the wheels of faction.— (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Faction had ever been the curse of this country.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He had never tied himself to support any Ministry, whatever their professions might be. Bat he would say this, that if Ministers expected the support of the public, they must not ask the House to assent to such a Bill as this.—( Hear, hear.) In the name of the poor and the working people of England, he was obliged on this occasion to make an earnest appeal to the great Conservative party.—(Cheers on the Tory, and laugh ter on the Ministerial side.) He prayed to God that that great party %voted now come forward in its strength on behalf of the working men of England. The landed ;aristocracy of the country were the natural leaders o itsa people.—(Oh, oh, responded to by cheers.) So continued the Hon. Gentleman, there was again a' cLer and a simper on the Liberal side.—(A laugh.) Teo &tnt commercial body and the manufacturers called for a repeal of the Corn-laws. They asked, it was true, for a reduction of the price of bread, but they wed knew that wages must always be relative.—(Great cheering on the Conservative benches, and some marks of di s ant from a few Members round the lion. Gen stem tn.) He knew that opinion might not be aereeable to all—he saw that it del not please the Hon. and Learned Nleniber for Dublin, but he was surprised that the truth should make that Honourable Mem ber groan.—(Continued laughter.) The manufacturers will knew that wages must he relative—that they must be relative to the a'nount of food in the market, and to the amount of the demand for labour.—(Renewed cheers.) lie would make his appeal to the Conserva tive party. The Liberal party, on that subject, were attached to the Noble Lord—they gave their confi dence to the Noble Lord ; and they had some reason for confiding in him, for the Noble Lord never deceived them, and he would boldly tell them in that case that his object was to prevent the poor from starving. The Poor-law Commissioners published a Report in De cember last. The Noble Lord, with that candour and condescension which every now and then actuated Ministers, wrote to them an obliging and kind note, telling them that their period of office had nearly ex pired—(he did not see the note, he only guessed the purport of' it)—anal that the time for the Commission was nearly out ; and the Noble Lord asked them if they could not write a Report, showing that they ought to receive their salaries for ten years more. Let them exert their ingenuity, they were told, to the utmost— let them see what they might effect in the way of illus tration. These gentlemen did set to work, and a number of hands were employed, many of them selected, not because they were remarkable for their humanity, but for their cleverness. The ingenuity of these parties having been exercised, a Report was concocted and pre sented to the Noble Lord, who slid he thought a c ise had been made out. On that case a Bill was framed, and sent to Ministers. The Bill was framed in Somer set House, and the Noble Lord, with all humility, pre sented it to Parliament. The Report of the Commis sioners, in the first instance, showed that, of course, no thing could be so effectual for the due administration of the law as the continuance of their own labours, and that they might, therefore, be continued in office for ten years more, or, in fact, for ever. They stated that the Bill would relieve them from all the embarrassments of the present system ; that it would enable them to encompass ev ery B oar d o f G uar di ans, an d to accom plish the objects of the Legislature. That was done in a country which boasts of its freedom, sagacity, and foresight ; but had it any parallel on record? Had they ever before heard that public men were to make a Re port with reference to their own conduct, and showing that they ought to continue in receipt of their salaries ? And yet that had been done in the present case ; and the Report, so framed, had been presented to the Noble Lord. One of the points most characteristic of the Report was a complaint that paupers who received relief did not display a spirit of gratitude. He believed that Hon. Members knew well how paupers were con fined in the union workhouses—how they were fed,and how they were treated. And was it not, he would ask, marvellous that, human nature, under the circumstances, should show no gratitude ? No, the paupers Were so s'nseless and thoughtless as to be ungrateful. But he (Mr.Wakley) denied that their gratitude was called for—he denied that it ought to be expected of them ; and he would say more—that those who did expect gratitude from them did not prove themselves qualified to carry out the Poor-law. Were they poor slaves? Had they lost every right as Englishman because they were poor? and was that the doctrine to be maintained in a Christian land ? (Cheers.) Because they were poor were they to sa crifice every right they possessed as independent men ? It was said they had no gratitude, but he would ask by what right did they receive relief? By a right conferred on them by Act of Parliament,—a right precisely the same as that by which the richest man in that House held his lands. He denied that they should be called oa to show their gratitud e f or t h at re li e f . T he Poor law Commissioners had referred to the Committee of Inquiry before the Commission was established, and they rely that that Committee made out a case for the amendment of the law. It was far from him to say that the Administration of the 4311 Elizabeth, had been in every instance just and discreet. The admi nistration of that law had been in a variety o f circum stances in the highest degree objectionable, not only as regards .the poor, but as regards the rate-payers. But while he admitted that, he was not called o n to support the proposition for its amendment. How was it that while it was stated on a ll hands that the poor rates had increased, no reference bad been made to the increase of property and population ? neither did they take into account that they had expended 300,000/. or 400,000/. per annum on a si ng l e C omm i ss i on, an d 100 , 000/ a year on a single lady. When by their new laws they had exas perated the m illi ons o f E ng l an d , an d w h en t h e y had raised up a spirit that made the nation tremble, it was then said that they were a restless and ungovernable people. He would now show the House what had been the amount of the poor-rates, for the twenty years pre vious to 1835. Ile thought they would show the House a new view altogether of the question ; and it would indicate to the House, that if the commercial wealth of the country increased, that there ought to be an increase of the amount of relief bestowed on the poor. For the five years ending March the 25th 1814, to 1819, the expenditure for the Poor-rate was 6,288,000/. ; from 1819 to 1824, it was 6,431,000/. ; from 1824 to 1829, 6,157,000/. ; and from 1829 to 1834, it was 6,754,000/. ; and taking the average of the first and last ten years, from 1814 to 1824, the annual expenditure averaged 6,356,000/. ; from 18?4 to 1834,', 6,455,0001., showing in the ten years before the Poor-law Amendment Act came into operation an increase of 9,500/. The increase the House would see was 1 per cent. in ten years. Now in what r a tio did p o p u l a ti on i ncr e ase ? Why in the ratio of 16 per cent. I n wh a t manner did wealthin crease, judging of that from the amount paid for legacy duty ? Why from 1815 to 1825 the amount was 319,363,000/. ; from 1825 to 1835 it was 382,577,0001., being an increase of 6:3.214/. in ten years, or at the rate 6,000,000/. a year. The increase of the property was at the rate of 6,000,000/. a year, and tie increase of the poor-rate was 95,0001. a year ; and yet an outcry had been raised that the poor-rate would soon absorb the whole property of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Now what was the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and what were its effects on the feelings of the peo ple ? That law came before that House under the sanction of a Liberal Administration, it was proposed by a Liberal Ministry, and it showed how cautious they ought to he in the use of terms, far he felt no hesi tation in declaring that no Tury Administration would have proposed such a law, and that if they had, they would never have enacted it into a law. In 1818, a proposition was made in that House to give a right of plural voting to rate-payers. By an Act, called Sturges Bourne's Act, the rate-payers, who were rated at 1 .50/. a year, were entitled to give six votes in parish elections. What was the proposition under the Poor law Amendment Act? Did the Noble Lord by this Bill now before the House propose to modify that sys tem of rating ? How did he reconcile the manner in which the right of voting was exercised in parishes in this country with the manner in which he proposed that should be exercised by the Bill for the Registration of Voters in Ireland ? He (Mr. Wakley) could not understand the degree of liberality which appeared in the one case, when everything that was illiberal was so prominently displayed in the other. Under Sturges Bourne's Act,passed in 1818, an occupier who was rated at 150/. a-year was entitled to give six votes. What was done by the Poor-law Amendment Act ? That right of voting from occupiers was transferred to non resident owners, and under the existing laws, the non resident owner could give by proxy six votes for the , very property which only enabled the occupier to give three votes. Was this just? Was it a specimen of liberality ? Was it the kind of franchise which ought to be awarded to them by a Reform Government ? If it were, the sooner that Government was changed the better would it be for the interest of the people.— ( Hear, hear, from Col. Sibthorp.) The public were labouring under a delusion with reference to the cha racter of the Government, and the sooner that delusion was dispelled, the better would it be for the country.— (Hear, hear.) Indeed, the Bill of the Noble Lord did propose in some measure to modify the right to vote by proxy. Why, under the existing law he (Mr. XV akley) knew an individual who, in one parish, put in sixteen hundred votes by proxy. The Noble Lord proposed that in future a man should only give twenty-four proxy votes. What effect has this system of proxy voting, and this system of voting with regard to owners? What effect had it upon the mass of the rate-payers ? Why, they were virtually disfranchised ; they felt it, they knew it, and they were indignant at the effect of the law upon their interests. They said, "Of what use is it for us to interfere in the elections ? we are absolutely deprived of the right of voting by the plurality of votes which are given by rich men, and by the voting of non-occupiers." Under these circumstances they were absolutely indifferent to the election of guardians, and they felt no interest in the matter. He (Mr. Wakley) could tell the House that in consequence of the operation of the law, and by re flecting upon these things, they were becoming dissatis fied at heart with their proceedings. They had no re spect for the Legislature of the country ; and lie would ask whether this was a feeling which Conservatives were desirous of seeing extended through the land ? The public, said the Hon. Gentleman, the public are be coming detached from the Parliament of the kingdom— they feel no interest in your proceedings ; they tell me that it is useless to present a petition to this House—that they do present a petition now and then, but when it is presented not a word is allowed to be spoken upon it, and that, in fact, the whole proceedings of this House are adverse to po pular rights, adverse to popular interests, and adverse to popular feeling. Now, if the principles he had condemned were not obnoxious, if he did not feel them to be ob noxious, yet if the people as a body were opposed to them, he might endeavour to express their feelings as he understood them to exist. But when he found these principles were really obnoxious, when he entertained no doubt of their being hostile to the public interest, he should be entirely wanting in his duty to his consti tuents if he did not take the part he was now taking with reference to the Poor-laws. I say, said Mr. Wakley, it is a cold-blooded mercenary Act,—l say it is an Act based on fierce and savage prinuiples,—l say it is an Act calculated to lead to the misery and torture of the deserving poor of this country, and, more than this, I say, it is an Act calculated to excite the muscle and bone of England to resist the authority of Parliament. I do not hesitate to predict that if you proceed with this law, and try to carry it out, you will produce in this country a feeling of indignation which nothing but force will be able to resist. Are you prepared for this ? Is it your desire? Sir, I do not believe that it is. It is my firm conviction that this House has legislated on this subject thoughtlessly, and without due reflection— that it has been instigated to legislation by statements put forth by the Poor-law Commission, based, in e great measure, on fallacy—containing statistical tables now known to be untrue, and which deceived this House, and led it into false conclusioes with regard to the result. Now, the poor labouring man, who has toiled thirty or forty years, and, at the end of every day, has had scarcely bread sufficient to maintain him self and children, prostrates himself on his knees be fore you. He appeals to your humanity, to your reli gion, and to your love of justice, and asks you, in the name of God,to retrace your steps, and to act no longer on a law which is so savage in its nature. He states that after having laboered well, and endeavoured to keep his family from the workhouse—that having done his duty by his neighbour, and violated no law, he is unable to maintain his children, and implores you in the name of Heaven to look upon him with feelings of compassion, and not let him become the vic'im of the mercenary wretches who desire to make his poverty the ground of infliction of punishment. I have witnessed cases calculated to break the heart—l have witnessed the furrowed cheeks of men who have attained the age of seventy years acting us Jurors, whose furrows were filed with the tears of sorro,v and grief at the desti tution of the fallen creatures. They ask of mo " What is Parliament about ? what do they desire? Do they wish the people to be murdered ?" I say, No—Parliament is deceived—it is the desire of Par liament to do justice to the people. But still, Sir, I I am not believed, because against my assertion there is the operation of the New Law. They hear the one, but are co:npelled to obey and to reflect upon the other. Do Ministers know what poor people in this country suffer ? Dana the Noble Lord know what is the nature of physical toil ? 'rake a boy, the son of a labouring man. At the age of 15, dragging his feet, and toiling:after the plough ; at 21, aye, at an earlier age (for I do not put the case at the worst) he fancies himself a man ; he can mow, and reap, and plough, but the dawn of every day tells him of misery and toil to be gone through in order to obtain his bread. No luxuries, no comforts, but a constant fight waged between his physical body and food. The next day and the next it is the same, and at the age of 60 he is broken down and palsied. His body b ecomes weary, an d hi s to il more oppressive to him, as his energies decline. He passes the gate of the poor-house, " There is my doom ;" and, in order to make it more con so l a t or y an d grat if y i ng to him, in the exercise of your Chri s ti an h uman i ty, a cemetery' is attached to the back of it ; so that, after being located in the dwelling, his eyes m a y b e rega l ed b y the view of the sods which cover the unfortunate beings who had gone before him.—(Hear.) D ay after day these reflections are operating upon his mind. At lest he can no longer earn the value of hi s wages, and his employer, acting on the principle of political economy, say's—`` Well, my good man, I hav e l ost b y you the last three weeks, and I can't lose by yo u any more. I have given you Eis. a week (high wages in our neighb our h oo d ) and I can't employ you any longer. "I am very sorry, Sir—l hope you will try me a little longe r "—" No," the answer is, " I can't, indeed." He applies t o th e g euardians for relief. The guardians in turn say— " Come into the house." " Why, Gentlemen," he re plies, " I have a cottage and a wife and family, let m e remain out, and allow me 3 s. or 4s. a-week.' The reply is " No, we would be glad to do it, but the Com missioners acting under the law will not allow us. The Commissioners sit in Somerset House, we can't touch them, we can't reach them, we cannot control nor influence them. We should be delighted to com passionate your situation, but we cannot. We have no means of overruling their authority. We would give it to you, but we cannot." His hopes are at an end. The cloud of despair from that moment over shadows that man. He enters the gate of the work house, and feels at that moment that lie has entered the portals of his tomb. Now, Gentlemen, is that Chris tian legislation ? Is it the legislation of an assembly of men who really desire to see their fellow-countrymen happy ? Can such, I ask, hear of the operation of a law , of thi s nature, and yet vote for its cont i nuance ? The Noble Lord, Ministers, and men of wealth, whose pursuits were entirely at variance with the feelings of ; r-law practice Act, as a m the poor, could h ave no knowledge of the condition of the poor ; for, if they h a d , they would never support such a Many edic y al moo, earsag°' he (Mr. Mr. and he had :V w a k a l e s y the Poor-law was opportunities in that capacity of witnessing what was the condition of the poor in their dwellings. He saw their miserable huts—their horrid hovels. He had seen women who, when they were agonized by the pangs of childbirth, had not the accommodation of the Honourable Gentlemen's horses in their st s tales, or dogs in their kennels. That he had witnessed a hundred and a hundred times ; at a period when some little luxuries were required, some comforts demanded, there would not be a single thing at hand—a little cold water, or small beer, or dry bread, being the only things which a Christian, under such circumstances, could be afforded. Were Hon. Gentlemen aware of those things ? But it was told him (Mr. Wakley) by the politicsl economists, that that law would raise the wages of the labourer. Well, they had had it six years, and had it raised their wages ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers from both sides of the House.) Oh, then, there was a difference of opinion about it—there were cheers from both sides of the House. Some gen. tlemen thought that it had raised the wages, some con sidered it had not. Would they by the operation of that law force wages up ? That was the question. Let them for one moment remember the ticklish ground on which they stood. They told the working people, the object of that law was to raise wages. But, he would ask, were wag :s raised ? He was informed they were I not. It was his belief that they were not. He heard from various parts of England that they were not. He could tell them that in one county—in Devonshire —they were only 7s. or Bs. a-week. Was that raising the wages ? Did they wish that the agricultural labourers in that county should combine ? Tae mowing season in Juno would soon arrive. Well, the farmer would say to the labourer, " John, the grass is ripe for cutting, you had better commence mowing in the mea dow below on Monday next." John answers, " Very true, Sr,a I believe the grass is ripe, but we cannot touch it on the old terms—we cannot take 2s. now—we must get 7e. We have formed a little society—a union sort of thing—(l,aug,hter)—and now we cannot put a scythe to the grass unless you give us 7s. an acre ; in three weeks the grass will be spoiled, but we cannot cut it for less, for we are told that Parliament has passed a law to raise our wages, and if we don't act thus we will be csiminals ; we mutt save some money, but we cannot save if we don't get it to save." Well, the grass will be cut, and that difficulty got over. By and by the wheat, the barley, and the oats will become ripe and require cutting, the farmer says to the la bower, " Come, John, begin the ricking." He replies, " No, Sir, not on the old terms. Parliament has told us that a law has been passed to raise our wages, and we cannot work, then, on the old terms ; we would be criminals if we did." Was it the desire of Gentlemen possessing a great stake in the country to force men into such combinations, and destroy all the friendly re lations that might exist between the employers and the employed ? If that were not their desire, their course was a most extraordinary one, for he could assure them that it would necess wily produce that effect which he mentioned. It was of no use to disguise the fact ; the opinion entertained by the people was that it was Hon. Gentlemen's object to deprive them of any relief either in or out of the workhouse. They might be right or they might be wrong i❑ that opinion ; but neverthe less it was their opinion. Now, if that were not the object, what were their arrangements. Take, for ex ample, Kensington parish. How many relieving offi cers were there in that parish, which possessed 25,000 inhabitants, and was 16 miles in circumference—that parish bordered close upon tile Court arid upon the Palace, and was under the noses of the Commissioners. How many, then, were the relieving officers in that parish ?—One. In S. Luke's parish there were 40,000 inhabitants, and lately the relieving officer had indeed got an assistant. Good God ! did they mean to tell him that it was possible to give the poor the relief that they required under such a system ? It was impossible, and the people knew it. What was the lan guage occasionally held to the poor when they applied for relief ? What was the language addressed to the wife of a poor man when she applied for relief ? The officer said, " I'll hang you." He admitted it, and by way of extenuation said that he used that language in a joke. In Kensington what happened in the case of Elizabeth Friars, whose name had been mentioned that night. A woman was sitting on the floor, worn out, exhausted, and with mortification in her legs.—(Hear, hear.) A poor Irish girl had given her shelter, and asked the union doctor to come and see her—he went, and the girl was Edam :el at her being informed that she would be subjected to three months imprisonment for giving that shelter to the wretched creature. The relieving officer came in, and the poor woman was dying. The girl remarked that, the medi cal ;:entlemen had told her she should be imprisoned for three months for giving shelter to the woman, and what was his reply. " The doctor was right," said he. These officers were to be sure reprimanded, but they were not discharged from their situations. But the Commissioners exercised a new function in that case. After the constituted authorities had made an investi gation of the facts—after the jurors of the neigh bourhood had been sworn to inquire into the circum stances and returned a verdict, and pronounced accord- ing to the facts. what did the Commissioners do Why they sent down a gentlemen of their own, with directions to try by every ingenuity to get rid of the moral effect of the verdict which the Jury had pro nounced. In all such investigations the gates of the workhouse were locked. The rate-payers were not admitted—the reporters of the press were not admitted. The Board did as they pleased. They might punish, imprison, or torture, and the poor man had ❑o redress. He was not permitted to go out —how was he to look for work ? How was he to eb- tain the assistance of his friend ? He was completely at the mercy of his tyrants.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) did not wish to say anything personally offensive to any Member of that House, but he was there to discharge an important duty. He had the greatest opportunities of witnessing the operation of this law, and he had only now stated the facts which had come under his observation. The Commissioners and the Noble Lord had sanctioned the punishment of Lisney, by the guardians, who had been both his accusers and his judge. Had the Noble Lord bettered the condition of the poor people by this Bill ? The Noble Lord had added to the offensive power of the Commissioners over the guardians, which had been exercised in so tyrannical a manner that the gentlemen of England would not submit to the humiliations to which they are subjected if it were not from a wish to protect the poor.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Maid6tone had moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, and he (Mr. Wakley) in se conding it, took the liberty of recommending the Noble Lord not to allow the question to be put to the House, but to withdraw his measure at once—(Hear, hear) —to make way for another Bill,to limit the Commission to two years and reduce its power.—(Hear, hear.) In such a Bill the Noble Lord would have an opportu nity of putting the Poor-law upon a rational basis. In the present state of the administration of the • Poor-law there was no uniformity. Every union had its particular rules, and pretty rules they were. The lion. Member then read an extract from the rules, in which leave was given to the guardians to allow a sepa rate room, under peculiar circumstances, to aged and decrepid people, on condition that they make a minute of such permission on their books, with their reasons for granting it—a copy of the resolution being trans mitted at the same time to the Commissioners, without which it should be invalid. Such was the condescen• skill of the Commissioners to the gentlemen of England who acted as guardians.—( Hear, hear.) He had shown by statistical details that the increase of the Poor-rates before this Bill had borne no propor tion to the increase of the national wealth.—(Hear.) Still the Commissioners said they had saved some millions by the alteration in the law. The truth, how -7 ever, W6S that the Commissior ers, in order to produce an appearance of saving, had struck out of the account every charge which they could have excluded. They omitted, for instance, the charges of Coroners; which had formerly been paid out of the Poor -rate, and which were now paid out of the county-rate. John Bull now paid with his left hand what he formerly paid with his ' right. The reduction, therefore, was a deception. But after all had they satisfied the rate-payers? Let them ask the rate-payers what they wished for. Let the rate-payers be appealed to by an honest system of voting, and let them say whether they desire that saving at the • expense of the comforts of the poor ; and what would be their answer? Their answer would be that they would rather perish, that they would rather go them selves without their meals than the industrious and deserving man, worn out with age and toil, should be deprived of these comforts essential to him in his old age. They were opposed to the Malthusian maxim of the Noble Lord, who said that the object of the Poor-law was merely to prevent the poor from starving. His Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Kilkenny said, on the other hand, that the olo ject of the law was to make a distinction between the deserving and the undeserving, between the idle and the industrious man, and he (Mr. Wakley) would go with his Hon. Friend. He would support any law which t t h h e e l H a w o , n. w l‘ h l e e h m h b e e r s a l : r w l h i a i l t k e h n a n d y h h e would lay th a t d own as a principle. But he would ask its e c p o e u r l a d t i s h u n p , p e o n r d t ° en v' when he heard the Noble Lord propound the course which the Commiisioners ought to follow to carry into effect. The H on . M em b er concluded by o ing the amendment. s e c u i d .. t Mr. G. KNIGHT said that notwithstanding the statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he should congratulate the Noble Lord on the introduction of his measure. The principle of the Bill was that of cen tralization, and he thought that without such a principle the amended Poor-law could not be carried out. Th e law, it was true, had become a subject for invective and unmerited censure ; and he (Mr. G. Knight) was not surprised at that, for with many such a course was po pular. It was always more pleasing to give than to re fuse, especially when we were dealing with other people's money. It was unpleasant enough to bo held up and announced as the enemy of the poor, but those who heaped their censures on the advocates of the measure, should remember what was the state of things before the law was reformed. He would beg of them to recollect that, under its influence, the Til. E SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, J B4l. poor were not impoverished but degraded—that it sanc tioned the miserable system of paying wages out of the rate—that. it discouraged the industrious, and offered a premium to the idle. Let them remember that it acted as a cancer on the heart of the country ; and he would then ask them whether those were the friends of the poor who wished to restore them to the debasement of the former system. That was not the course which the friends of the labouring classes should pursue. They should, on the contrary, teach them to rely upon their own exertions, and endeavour to secure for them better wages and more employment. Those were not the enemies of the poor who wished for those objects, but those were their enemies who endeavoured by misrepre sentations, to enlist their passions against a law intended to raise their condition. It should be remembered, too, that England was the only country in which anything worthy of the name cf a Poor-law was in existence—it was the only country in which the law compelled those who were not paupers, to relieve those who were. He did not complain of that, but he thought the circumstance should be remembered by those who indulged in such sweeping condemnations of the Engiish Four law. He should also observe that the amended system was in many respects superior to the old one. In a Metropolitan district with which he was connected they had elf, cted a saving 0125,000/. a year in the Poor-rate, while at the same time they greatty amended the condition ofthe poor whowere better accom modated and had better medical attendance than before. If the stories which bad been circulated with a view to bring the law into disrepute, were trac e d t o th e i r s . eirce , thus . would be found to be tithe r (Its itute of foundation or gross exaggerations.—( Cheers.) Lamentable occur rences had no doubt taken place, but they had taken place under the old law ; also under the old sys tern those occurrences had let en much more nu merous. Be did not mean to defend those abus, , s, but they were not necessary consequences of the new law; and if wrong had been done, he ee.eld say let the wrong doer be punished. No pauper could now be bandied about from parish to parish until he died in the cart, but if des titute, he was entitled to immediate relief. The Hon. Member for Finsbury bad drawn a very lamentable picture of the case of a man sixty years of age ; but he thought the Hon. Member ought to have been prepared. Had lie studied the Act, he would have known that provision had been made for the relief out of the house of persons who had attained sixty years of age. It was only to the able bodied that out of door relief was refused. He respected the feeling of the poor men who considered the workhouse a disgrace, and made every exertion to keep himself and his family out of it; but a man had no right to say that it was not a fit place for him, if he chose to live upon his neighbour. The union house was in some re spects better than the poor maws own cottage—it was warmer, and the diet was better ; and what less cruel mode than restraint could be devised to make a difference between the workhouse and the cottage? One word with respect to the meriturious poor. It would certainly be more agreeable to his feelings if all could be relieved out of the house, but he thought in all hard cases priva.e cha rity was the proper source of relief; and whenever they met with a hard case, they could always relieve it by putting their hands in their pockets. I: had been said that although the New Poor-law was adapted to agricul tural districts, yet it was not adapted to manufacturing towns. Now, be considered it was even more adapted for those towns than for agricultural counties. Towns acre subject to constant fluctuations in trade ; the operatives there were in the receipt of higher wages, and therefore that law must be admirably adapted to them which taught them to make provision, by saving their wages, against the day of pressure.—(Hear.) He believed that the welfare of the English labouring classes depended upon ;he maintenance of the New Poor-law, and be thought that justice and mercy alike forbade its being repealed. Ile begged Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House not to look upon this measure with less favour becaus., it was a Whig one. It was too great a measure to be discussed with party or political feelings. H' was as little disposed as any one to overlook the errors of her Majesty's Minis ters, but when they did deviate into right—(A laugh).— as they had done in the Now Tithe.law, the Now Poor. law, and, he would add, the Treaty of last July—( Cheers) —he considered he should not be acting the part of a good citizen if he did not give them his support.—( Cheers.) If he thought the measure was merely to save the money of the rich he would not support it, but believing its object to be to raise the character of the poor, he would give it his cordial support, in spite of any unpopularity which might attach to him. lu voting fur the second reading, however, be was not to be understood as approving of all the details, but they would be better discussed in Corn mince. Mr. BUCK supported the Bill, but he thought the Noble Lord ought to pledge himself that he would itlow cJrtain parts of it to be amended when it went into Com mittee. He alluded particularly to the power given to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners. He hoped that such powers would be curtailed, as they were urterly unconstitutional. Mr. MUNTZ had been long aware that the great mis fortune of the people of the country was, that those who were the law makers were not the law workers. It the Noble Lord and his colleagues were to act as Poor-law Guardians for only six months, they would never attempt to enforce such an obnoxious law, for it made no distinc tion between the honest man and the idle, dissolute, and drunken vagabond. If those stupid farmers who made up wages out of the Poor rates, had discovered that they paid these rates themselves, and therefore gained nothing by the practice, they would have remedied the thing them selves, as he (Mr. Muntz) had seen it remedied in other places. He remembered a time when the s into practice existed in the town of Birmingham, but in a very short time it was cured, and there was no danger that it weuld ever under any circumstances he revived. It was said that there had been a great saving under this law. He (Mr. Muntz) doubted the truth of that statement. From all that he could learn, the amount of wages at present was fully equal to what it had been before the passing of the present law. —( Cheers from Lord John Russell an d Lord Howielt ) The Noble Lord cheered that statement but he (Mr. Muntz) believed that no saving had been effected in the aggregate by the operation of the Poor-law.—( Hear.) Now, whatever might be the experience of other gentle men, his (Mr. Muntz'a) was uniformly to this effect. He bed never known a man of kindly feeling who was overseer for the space of six months who did not in that time be come callous to all who were placed under his control. That being the case, what must be the feelings of those who were permanently masters of workhouses, who had held that office for two, three, five, or six years ?—( Hear, hear.) Many instances of the cruelty of these persona had been related to the House by the Hen. Member for Fins bury, and let them not imagine that these were solitary cases, although there were few men of the same energy arid ability as the Hon. Member for Finsbury to bring them before the country. These were not the only cases in which the law was objectionable, and in which its seve rity and injustice were manifested. There ought undoubt edly to be a distinction made between large towns, where great numbers were frequeutly thrown out of employment, and small places, where the distress was upon a much smaller scale. He (Mr. Mintz) had seen ten thousand men thrown out of employment at once. When they ap plied for relief, they were told that they might come into the house, but they would not accept the offer. Its fact it was not iatended that they should; there was not suffi cient room for them; and the offer was made merely for the purpose of getting rid of them. The intention of the law, perhaps, was good, but its effect was most unjust and severe. He was quite confident that if the Noble Lord and his colleagues knew the working of the law, they would be the last men not only to bring it in, but even to vote for it.—( Hear.) Feeling, as be did, the greatest objection to the renewal of the Commission for ten years ; believing, us he had long believed, that the Poor-law Bill, like the Factory Bill, and several others which he could name, were the effects of an erroneous view of finance, and calculated to inflict a deep injury upon the country, he (Mr. Muntz) would do all in his power to prevent the passing of the law un that occasion. The Hon. Mr. LIDDELL ruse and said that be felt it his duty to vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. The Noble Lord, in intriiducing this Bill, had thought fit to remind the House of those grievances and evils which it was the obj ct of the Poor-law Amend ment to remove. He (the HAI. Mr. Liddell) thought the Noble Lord might almost have spared himself the trouble of going over that ground again for as he understood, that was a subject on which there was little difference of opinion. He agreed with the Noble Lord in giving full credit to the authors of the Poor-law fur having clone their best to check a system which, if per severed in, if not checked by even a rigorous enactment, might have produced innumerable evils in many parts of the kingdom. Ho agreed with the Poor-law Commis sioners in that part of their Report in which they referred to the progress of pauperism in the more highly pauper ised districts of England. It was the object of the Poor law to remedy that evil, and he believed it was necessary that a very strong remedy should be applied. To that ex tent the Noble Lord and himself were agreed ; and to that extent he was willing to support the continuance of the Poor law, But he would never consent to go to so great an extent as was contemplated by that Bill. He would never accede to the proposition, that in order to work out the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act, it was necessary to vote for the Perpetuity of the Poor-law Commission. That was, in his opinion, a fair and intelligible ground for objecting to the Bill. Tu this ground he was able to add some others, viz., specific objections to certain clauses, which he consi dered to be extremely injurious in their operations upon the community. The Hen. Member for Finsbury, in the course of his able address, had given to the House his ex perience of the working of the law in the popular districts in the surrounding metropolis. He, the Hon. Mr. Lid dell would say a few words as to the working of the law in a district of a character altogether different, in a dis trict strictly rural and agricultural, where, as was ad mitted by almost all authorities, it was not neces sary, so far as regarded any abuse which had here tofore existed, to make any alterations in the old law. Regard for truth and fairness compelled him to admit that the law did work indifferently well in his immediate dis trict. But the object of the law was to ben, fit some class or other ; and, in his union, it had benefited no one—the c p r o o o a r s o w d e . r e not H better o did , taken however, careknow o f and the rates auoion iowhilacihd the o rates had been diminished to the amount of 2,000/. a yesr. There were some points connected with his own parish to which he wished to call the attention of the House. 0:10 great grievance was the extent of the union, which ren dered it difficult to get guardians to attend from remote districts, without being paid for their sereices, which was effected somewhat illegally by a private rate. The pre. sent Bill proposed to make overseers eligible as guar dians—a practice which was connived at, at present, in the union of which bespoke, and was not attended with benefit. He thought it was highly objectionable, and hoped the Noble Lord would reconsider it. But lie came now to another objection, namely—the maintenance of the Cen ti al Board for so long a period as ten years, during which they possess a power of g eventing the whole kingdom— powers capable of the most tyrannical and pernicious applica tion, and beyond the law. He hoped the House would not consent to such a clause, and that, if he could not hop s to be joined by a majority in his support of Mr. Wakley'e views, the House would not coi.- sent to the proposed prolongation of the Commission. —( Hear, hear.) By another clause relating to the Commissioners' Chambers, they would be to a great ex tent relieved from the necessity of notifying and making public all their regulations. This was also a most objectionable clause. Even under the present law, by which they were tequ:red to notify publicly every regula tion which they formed, they sometimes evaded their re sponsibility ; and in his union, very great dissatisfaction and inconvenience had been ocelsioned by their doieg so. lie believed that so far from its being necessary to give relief to the poor by rule and square, if they persevered in what they termed their just principle of relief, which was measured by rule and square by the Commissioners at So merset House, they would increase that alienation which mss at prevent taking place. He regretted that he should differ from honourable Gentlemen whom he re spected, but be would never consent to the prolongation in power of the Central B said of Commissioners longer than eves necessary to give their accounts to the public. Sr R. PEEL said that ta-re were many reasons wii;eli induced him to give his vote io favour of the second real nig ot that Bhil, He consid , red that two main qua tiotis were involved io the discussion of the subj,ct ; one, whe ther they should abandon that great experiment which had been made fur the ittil)rovhment of the administration of the Poor-lair ; the second was, whether it was de sirabie to adhere to the superitstendence of the Cenirat Board of Commissioners. There certainly were greet evils iii the presem, system. lie thought he perceived that there leas a cancer eating away the strata of that country—paralyzing its healthful condition—itii which r: quitted Inc prompt intervention of P4rliament.--- ( Hear. hear.) lie was much inclined to agree with the Hon. Gentleman; and he doubted whether the time had arrived for making that experiment. He was inclined to thin it if a Conservative Government had fro posed the measure, there would be no great eifficuity in carrying the amendment. If it would require the active co-operation of the great political parties to effect the al teration, be concurred with the Hurt. Gehtlernan that that active co-operation would be more easily procured by those in whom he believed that Hon. Gentlemen placed the most unbounded confidence. Hon. Gentlemen were apt to forget what was the state of things when the alteration was made in the Poor-law. It was not unnatural that they should dwell almost exclusively on the evils and abuses which they were actually experiencing, and ferg.t those, however infinitely greater they might have been, which were not su fresh in their memory. lie thought it of great importance to remind the House of wh a t was the state of thi. gs at the time the alteration in the Poor-law took place, because that state of things constituted his (Sir R. Peel's) vindication for the support which he now gave to the amendment proposed. While the Hon. Gentleman was speaking, he (Sir R. Peel) thought he recollected a Report on the Con dition of the Agricultural Labourers, which he thought it would not be without advantage to refer to in the pre sent discussion, and which he would therefore bring before the consideration of the Eieuse Its tire year 1824 a Com mittee was appointed to inquire into the rate of labourers' wages, and evidence of the condition of the agricultural labourers in several parts of the country was taken. Some thought that labourers had good right to com plain of the diminished amount of the poor-rate paid to them. The lion. Gentleman contrasted the increase of property—the increase of taxation—the increase of wealth generally with the diminished umeunt of poor rate, and he thought that ground of complaint accounted for the small part appropriated to the relief of the labouring poor. He ( Sir R. Peel) thought that he could take a hundred in which that ground of complaint did not arise, and in which the lion. Gentleman would Lind a pro. gressive amount of money appropriated to the relief of the labouring poor, and he would see if effects, which he would deem it natural to expect, had resulted (The Right Hon. Baronet here proceeded to read from the Report, ex trscts of evidence relative to a certain hundred in the eounity of Sulf Ik. The accounts, be said, were kept from Lady Day to Lady Day, in each year—from 1610 to 1824 —showing an increase in the rate and in the amount ap. propriated for the relief of the lab , uring poor. From Lady Day, 1310, to Lady Day, 1811, the amount paid ati 11 3-,; from 1811 to 1812, it was 11. 10a. ; and from 1812 to lel3, it was 3/. ; it then increased to 6/. the next year; the subsequent year it amounted to 51. ; it then went on increasing till it amounted to 1,384/ ; and in the year 1822 it advanced to 2 : 297/ ; and in 1e24 is increased to 3,5361. In that progressive increase of rate, and progres sive increase of money appropriated to the relief of the poor, what was the result? Did the moral condition of the la bourers improve by that increased applicetion of money to their relief ? Were their actual comforts advanced ? Let the House hear what the witness said What are the effects you find produced by the present system of employ ing the labourers?" He was asked at first with respect to the unempleyed labourers. The witness answered that the effect produced was, the total demoralization of the lower on ders. That they were made poachers and robbers by it; and that he could not explain the state of demo ralization to which it reduced them. Yet, continued the Right Hon. Baronet, the rate and the appropriation of money were progressive. He ( Sir R. Peel) was only wanting to show the House that the Hon. Gentleman was not correct in his arguments, by which he would prove that the industrious poor had a right to complain, be cause they bad not received a certain amount. He observed that crime had increased undoubtedly within the lest five years, owing to the. present system of relieving with money. It broke the bond of onion between the farmer and the la bourer, who both considered their interest as one and the same. That mutual feeling how no longer existed. In the generality of parishes it appeared that from five to forty labourers have been without employment, loitering about during the day, insulting passengers on the road, or con suming their time in sleep, in order to be the more active during the hours of darkness. Let them suppose, then, that the Hon. Gentleman came to those men in that condition, and addressed to them the inflammatory speech that he deli vered to night—if he should have said to the able bodied la bourers, " It is a shame that you cannot get work ; what a scandalous thing it is for those hard-hearted farmers not to afford you the meansof support you have a right to under the Act of Parliament," what, he would ask, might have been the consequence ? The Hon. Gentleman might have drawn exactly the same case of distress that he did to night, exciting their feelings, but disregarding these consi derations, which ought to weigh with a rational man as a remedy for a great and growing evil. Let it be supposed that the Legislature would grant relief to the able-bodied poor, without exactly distinguishing the labourer from that men who bad a tendency to the degraded condition of the workman who was able to pay his rent, but unwilling,—let them suppose that the Legislature would put some such teat to the labourer as the workhouse, that was, to say "You shall have comfortable lodgings and food, but it is required that you take up your residence in the workhouse." Let it then suppose that the Legislature thought that the legiti mate effect of that would be to improve the moral charee ter, and ultimately the physical condition of the lebourer, would the lion. Gentleman say that the Legislature was hound to adopt that system? He (Sir R. P.) admitted that it was impossible to amend the lave without giving rise to in dividual cases of great distress. lie lamented that, but they must look in those things to general results; they could not decide by individual cases, lamentable though they might be. He was inclined to believe that there were abuses in the old system which were never heard of, and of more aggravated kind, because they escaped the public eye. He regretted that there existed under the amended system abuses also, but he hoped that the consequence of having public attention called to them would be their removal. It had been hoped that the application of some new test to improve the labourer would teach him tire value of independence, and it was for that reason the great alteration was made in the law. He (Sir R. Peel) deeply regretted that after the expense that had been incurred, which was, comparatively speaking, a minor consideration, it had been found necessary to abandons the alteration after a trial of four or five years. He was not able to gather from the entire speech of fie Hose Gentleman what project he proposed. Wag it intended to apply some test by which they would be enabled to distinguish the vir tuous, industrious man? That was the test which in his opinion they ought to apply, and by which they would be enabled to do their duty to the rate-payers, from whom they should be cautious to exact not one shilling for the reward of idleness or fraud. He had conic to the conclusion that it was not fit to have that experiment adopted in 1834 The Right Hon. Baronet here adverted to the statements made by the Hun. Gentleman the Member for Birming ham, and observed that in many parishes there were far mers who were in the habit of paying wages out of the poor-rate, and those farmers were called stupid—that was the term—and yet that plan exactly conferred thr• benefit which he expected from the Central B iard of Commissioners. The cases to which the Act of Elizabeth applied were mentioned ; but the majority of these were cases of mis placed humanity. He expected that the Central Board of Commissioners would gradually introduce a uniformity of system, and persuade those, who admitted the abuses of the law, by reason and not by compulsion ; by represent ing the beneficial effects of a good administratiou of the law, they would be able more effectually to introduce a universally good and humane system.—( Hear, hear.) Again, tree lion. Gentleman said that no saving whatever had beers effected, and for this reason, that although he believes there has been a nominal saving in the amount of the rate contributed, yet there has been an increase in the charge on account of the increased wages of labour.— ( Cheers.) Putting together the existing rate, and the increased sum which he contributes to this rate, pay for labour, and striking a balance, the Hon. Gentleman said there will be no actual saving.—(Cheers.) Wliy, the Ron. Gentleman was a great authority, He gave em ployment to a great number of persons, and one of the advantages he ( Sir R. Peel) had hoped front the adminis tration of the Poor-law was that the industrious and vir tuous labourer would receive increased wages, and he (Sir R. Peel) rejoiced that on that account there had been no saving.—(Cheers.) But adding the increased wages to the diminished amount of the poor-rate, on the whole the balance was against the employer and in favour of the employed —( Cheers. ) The lion. Member for Finsbury in selecting the different counties of England, and showing the low amount of w ages i n them, had se lected the county of Devon. Now it did so ha open that the county of D evon was t h e county' in which the greatest amount of out-door relief had been granted—( Hear, hear, hear. ) lie ( Sir Robert Peel) had looked at the teturns—[The lion. Gentleman said that only 7s. a week had been paid to them. This appeared exceedingly low, but it was necessary to inquire whether that low rate was occasioned by the administra tion of the work-h ouse test, f or if not it was no argument against the Poor -law - I —a n d he found in the county of Devon, selected by the Hon. Gentleman, there was time lowest amount cf wages . —( H ear, hear.)' This was in a county in which, in only two unions there had been a posi tive order to discontinue out-door relief, and in which, at the present moment, of all the counties of England the great est amount of out-door relief was given. He did not mean to say that out-door relief was the cause of lowness of wages; hut it was a singular fact that the county in which east the lowest amount of wages was the county in which as the greatest amount of - out-door relief. Oa these general grounds, namely, the recollection of the evils bich the old system had produced, and the imperfection of the present system, he prefet red giving the charge e its administration, for the present, to a Central Commis sion, and should give his vote. for the second reading o the Bill. (Great cheering.) But at the sani time, he felt it necessary to reserve to himself ti emire right of judging of the merit of particular clauses.— ( Hear.) lie would mention one or two clauses of tie propriety of which he had great doubts. He had doute as to the propriety of continuing the duration of the Con:- mission fer so long a time.-_( Hear.) He did not ne. a: to say the experience of another short period might net comet - ice him still more that the existence of a Contra! Commission would he advantageous, but he thought r would be mo:c satisfactory to the feelings of the count:, that at a.. earlier period the matter might again pass nud e . ; revision, and that the House would find it advemage o u s riot to extend the period for its duration beyond five years.--( Hear, hear.) It did not necessarily follow thm there must then be a termination of the Commission, it they were convinced that it was working well. But a, eery thsre was a diffarence between lensing it open te any Member to ptepoee the repeal of the existing law, and having it certain that, at the end of five years they could reject er renew the existing Hear, hear.) He did not deny the force of some of those arguniants that a , !he end of five years there should be a legislative revision of the conduct of the Commissioners. He thought it would be a greater security for their goad conduct thaii securing them in office for ten years. and if five years eon. winced them the Ceniruirtion worked well, he was sure the good souse of Parliament would induce them to consent to its continuance.-_( Hear, hear, hear ) Another reason fax his insisting. as tar as he could insist, for a shorter time for the duration of the Commission, was, that a great deal depended in the personal character of the gentlemen ein played. Great power vas devolved upon them—a power of legislating ti such an extent that he thought it would he more becoming in Parliament to reserve to itself the power of supervision where so much depended on the per sonal character of the gentlemen employed. He was strongly inclined to think that a shorter period than ten years would be more likely to produce a proper discharge of duty in those to whom they delegated these enlarged powers.—( Hear, hear.) Another clause, respecting which he certainly felt great difficulty, was that respecting attaching burial grounds to union workhouses.(Cheers.) He did hope the Noble Lord would not attempt to cre'ry this system too harshly into execution. He (Sir R. Peel) never had given his vote in favour of the measure from any other motive than to promote the interests of the labouring classes—( Cheers)—and to remedy the sbases of the Poor law ; and he regretted this clause because he felt it was calculated to prejudice the la* in the feelings of a large class of this country. It was of immense importance, and he hoped the Noble Lord would secure the proper execu tion of this law with as much respect as possible to the feelings of those who were more particularly affected by it. If, as he believed, the poor of this country had a decided preference to being buried in these coasecrated grounds attached to their parish churches, one could not help ad miring the honest prejudice ; arid, further, he could see no objection to that last solemn ceremony being performed over their remains in the ancient burial-ground, where their ashes might mingle with the ashes of those to whom death once more united them. He did not see that this was any necessary part of the operation of this law— (Hear, hear)--and he was convinced that, the more they could legislate consistent with their main object, the ele vation of the character of the poor, who could not be ex pected to take these enlarged views of the ultimate r ffect of legislation, it would be so much the better. He had a strong impression that it would be infinitely better to en courage, as strongly as possible, the b ur i a l of the poor ia churchyards to which they were attached, than to bury them in cemeteries attached to the workhouse.—( Hear, hear). There was one other clause he should be sorry to see adopted. He should be sorry to see any extension of the existing unions.--( Hear, hear), lie quite understood there might be some advantage in very large unions, but he was inclined to think they had carried that principle ss far as they could advantageously do, and that possibly it might be advantageous to diminish then. They would find in these large unions a great difficulty in securing the attendance of guardians, and he thought also that where they had a relieving officer visiting remote rural parishes by having unions too extensive, and its perm too remote from the cognizance of the Board of Guardians, there might be opportunities of abuse which would be cor rected, if the unions were on a more limited scale. lie should, therefore, regard any proposition for the extension of unions with great jealousy.—y Hear, hear.) He had mentioned these two or three clauses respecting which be entertained considerable doubt on giving his consent to the second reading of the Bill, and he must repeat what he had le-fore stated, that he reserved his consideration of spec fic clauses. When he saw increases: powers com. I.rred, he must be convinced that increased powers were necessary f,r the proper operation of the Act, but these clauses would all undergo consideration, arid lie should apply to the consideration of them on the principla he had before stated, namely, the desire to provide an effectual remedy against the abuses which had undermined the pre sperity of the country, and the desire also to consult as far as he possibly could the feelings of that class who were more immediately subject to the operation of this ( Cheers.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, if he bad not seen the Right lion. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) in the lieuse at the time it was proposed, he should have supposed he had not heard the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Maidstone. The question before the House was riot whether they would adhere to or abandon the present sys tern, but whether they would agree to the second reading of a Bill, entitled an Act to amend the present Poor-law, but in which he could find no amendment whatever._ (Hear, bear.) On the contrary, he found aggravation of every evil of which the people of the country complained. It was quite true the present system required much amendment. It was very well to talk of speeches being inflammatory when spoken against the Poor-laws, but he begged leave to say that, if that 'Commission was to be con tinued, he did not believe the law could be safer than in the hands of those Hon. Gentlemen—(Cheers)—but he had a right to attack the system under which they were acting.—( Hear, hear.) And on that principle alone he rose to offer a few observations to the House. It was stated that this was a Bill to amend the present law, but where was it amended? lie thought it would be better that the Government should introduce a Bill of half a dozen line s, merely saying the Commissioners should be made perpetual, and should have the power of the Com mons, Lords, and Crown of the United Kingdom, because, in fact, this Bill would confer on them these powers. It would be better at once to give them the power of legislative enactment. The Right lion. Gentleman suggested the Commission should only last five years. It was not difficult to predict that what the Right Hon. Gentleman suggested would be accepted by her Majesty's Government, and he (Mr. D.) therefore wished the Right Hon. Gentleman had suggested one year, as he felt satisfied in such case it would have been agreed to. He was quite satisfied also that after the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, thete would be no private church-yard in which these poor persons would be thrown into the earth like so many dogs. It was not even said in the Bill that any clergyman was to perform the service over them. The Right lion. Bmonet gave great credit to the poor for their meritorious feelings respecting burial in their own church- yard, but he wished the Right Hen. Gentleman would pay as much respect to these poor old people during their life as be seemed desirous of paying to their remains. It would be much more satisfactory to them. They thought a greater evil could not be ii.flicted upon them, after expending their time and strength in improving lion. Gentlemen's estates, than to be shut up in a workhouse when they applied for relief at the discretion of the Poor. law Commissioners.—( Hoar, hear, and No, no.) It was at the discretion of the Commissioners, they could not deny that. I( they wished to adhere to the present system, why introduce the present Bill? When the old Bill was introduced, it was promised that the Gilbert Unions and local Acts should not be interfered with, but now the guardians of these unions would not consent to the re newal of the Poor-law. They were going to do that by force which they could not effect by reason. They were going vittually to repeal all the local Acts of the Metro polis., which he told the Noble Lord was a breach of faith. They were told on the first day of the Session, by the Noisle Lord who moved the Address, that this Bill hail woi kad well, had been a boon to the ti•tititry. If thi s were so, why did n o t t h e Gilb ert Unions at (thee embrace it? The) did not, because they knew it to be a jobhing Bill. It was all a fallacy, but a profitable one ler the Ministers, to say that if this Bill was not agreed to, ti l e s muat revert to the old system of Poor-laws. The case was now entirely altered; the laws were new administered by individuals elected by the ratmplyere, and were not now under the cantroi of overseers and Justic s of the Peace. Thet fallacy having been expledvd, he sew no reason why the House should give eta seem ti .n to the second reading of the Bill—of Bill which would take away from the rate- payers all control over the law—a Bill which would disfranchise the rate-payers to any extent that it might please the Commissioners—because, perhaps, few Members were aware that it contained a clause giving the Commissioners power to divide unions into wards, and settling, according , to their own pleasure, the number of guardians to be re turned by such wards. The Bill had been proceeded in with indecent haste; the country had not had time to be made aware of the provisions it contained. He had ao doubt the Bill would be read a second time; but front the opposition the Noble Lord had met with that night, he would have a foretaste of what he might expect in Corn mittee. He wished the Noble Lord would be wise and withdraw the Bill. He would do so if he did not wish to widen the chasm which now existed between the richer and the poorer classes of society. He wished that ihe Noble Lord could be induced to withdraw the Bill, and found upon it another Bill that would be more accordant to the feelings of the rate-payers, more humane to the poor, and more in accordance with the feelings of justice and hu manity: —( Cheers. ) Mr. F. MA UL E would press as earnestly upon his Noble Friend as the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, hut in a different way. He would press up n his Noble Friend to persevere with the Bill, and he trusted that notwithstanding the speech they had just heard the Bill would meet with no more than fair opposition. It wa s unfair to charge the Government with pressing on the Bill with indecent haste. The country must be fully aware of ail its provisions, foe it was laid before Parlia ment in the Match of last year, allhough, from circum stances which he need not now allude to. it had eot been discussed until late in the S, -siren El, lied ;•••:ird the speech of the Hon. Member fo Fuiebtey ( Air. Wakley) with greet regret. He charged the country gentlemen of England with acting from mercenary motives in the carrying out of this Bill. Now that was a positi on which he did not think would be taken up by any other gentleman, nor did he believe that it was founded upon anything like fact. The lion. Gentleman had also slid that the discontent which had existed in the country of late years arose from the Bill of n 834. In that statement the Hon. Gentleman maligned the poor, of ie horn he wished it to be thought he was the advocate Er was w- :1 known the discontented were not the poorer classes tee discontent arose from, and was cot:fie , d to, these mea s . a ,h e were earning such wages as to keep then far from poverty. The Hon. Gentleman hod also threatened timm with a combination of agricultural labourers, should the MORNEN,T(-- ErITTION c or a .3,11 pats i nto a l aw. Ho said, that, wirer. t h e hay t ,, set mei - vest came about, th e labourers might combine. a ''_ to aei farmers d, tience. Now, !lq 111 , 1 i iisk the 110 0 " 0 , 'ook eta hat h a d t a k en pl ace . Had a cre been iitl r ies% .iiration of th e agr i cu lt ura l h a b ourers same tie t h a t Poor-law had bee% enecte ? He emphatieelly ss'nr, of to re had n o t. !l e wou la t yk e no credit fair the sae,lieg.bat noney wel c h h a d b een e ff ecte d, f or he frankly avo w , t was but a s econ d ar y coneideretiom The regeriert . , o l d the poor was w h a t too or i g i na t ors o f the Bill ha d j i ü bcia et, a n d h e was qu i te aura, th e ogli tho lades h a " ba , o doubled, the gentlemen of Eneland would no. .0,, grudged it, bad the character of the p o or be , n rait en , the degredetion in which the old law had eteer- d ti ie t e s t Ho (Mr F. M.) h e ld it t o b e ne xt to irnpossila et be , they could now a band on th e new system. He di d n e on lieve that there was any Membar in the House, inn eoa the H on . M em b er f or Fi ns b ury hi mse lf, who woul d a . 0 ei c he urge them to go b ac k to th e o ld s y s t e m. That brgt tablished, th e ques ti on was could they carry ou t 1 5 new systera without the aid of central ' rnanag ernent. no ,,d his opini on , i t was i mposs ibl e. Th e or i g i na l Bill was fouile,. not upon the opinions of the Commissioners thelnse'tioo hut upon their opinimis founded upon an exat eirts is ~ into, and approval of, the management of the re'riesa certain pari s h es , a bl e b the were anxious should he° t into effect throughout England. He did not intend e ls, to draw any c o m p ar i sons b etween gao l s a nd workileie:o but he co u ld not avo id drawing the attention of the rtetieo to the ben e fi c i a l resu l ts which had cowed from thesYsetb of central management , w hi c h h a d b een adopted regard to the 1 risons of Scotland. All part le e s t l es e.) g iv e th e i r h earty appro b ation to that systern. - 1,, t he They only warted central management " ° ',,,eoal puipoe e having a simil ar ity o f manag ement thro e j a de the co u nt r y. Al rea d y great i mprovements had been pace In lac management of the Poo r -laws : but still the re n as wide field left for the b ene fi c i a l operation of the Cena eedi sion ers . A great per of the country was still untolle coo and without the central management, they would hr e s ea system in one part o: the country, pulling tern established in another part. He would now ° ra mps . the question of expense, and, for the purpose of e c i ° ll a t e rison, he would take that year 1834, the year W e ' c „eisr Hon. Member for Maidstone stated there Warn i f e t - e eir OireIIMSVIIICC° tat dia; to reduce the rates. In tu t " ' te d the amount levied for the purposes of the poor ate ea f o ur to 6 300.0001., while in Is4o the sum was reduced % o pts aid a half nallions, showing a savingof nearly twn tnl i ; the against tae e l 10 effected upon the simple administration of relief t tha t poor ; and he was ready at the same time to maintain pas 0 .10 s g o i ;given is i n fa c T r -t y . as The the the sum given in bona fide relief was greater the 0 0t resultpecuniary oth e r r get f greatly tended to raise the character of the wotking e n ,: a are even to a point he had scarcely expected them to bays rived at in this country. Suppose the Poor' - le w the result, b l o t w h e a v d ers c e e mission were to be at an end, and t hat ro i of Boards of Guardi ans were to assume the sole e ne , t e . e s isa unions under th e i r charge. He would ask wh at L " eaae that would have up on th e con d uct o f un i on officers, w t o f con tro b •, 4l appointment and dismissal is now under the the Commissioner. It had been made a freenee t i sti r kals of attack that they had not used those powers wita' - rs er ency in many cases, but he could only say that wr.' t h - t ee the Commissioners had been made acquainted w it t i o ad misconduct of any union officer, they had invariahlY ° r e eio - strict examination into the facts, and they had eitil c not 10 missed the officer or sho r n the public that he "' a ' o de' fault. L a st y ear th e C omm i ss i oners h id dirnissed scr i , of five• officers, be s id es h av i ng accepte d t h e teilgeat'°They many others who found their dismissal ineviteble. g ilt had also taken care t o i nqu i re i nto every comp l a int h` l ' i .,, e l before them. Il e th oug h t t h at if , on the ot h er o ld left all control in the hands of the guardians, they w er e be unwilling to dismiss officers whatever eci they might have committed, as these offieers won'a !or bobby be with them objects of partiality. T h e e e l) &l l '' of supervisi on , w hi c h was p l aced in the hands ofe!"-„. missioners, by w hi c h t h ey might diseileirge onucc.,-,1 the pointed by the guareims, was, in his opinion, ° e t a ifeta, greetest advanta ges o f t h e w h o l e system. But the t Member who h a d l as t a dd resse d t h e H ouse s t a ted ° o ld' boards of guardians were left t o th emse lves, 'her` w ire. be no fear th a t th e y wou ld at em pt t fall into t he aby ss' of the old system. Ile ( Mr. Mettle) had made s era tie ssa quiry on that subje c t o f t h e P oor. l aw C om nii6' i° i s rs• and no one could sty that they had any reason to t og present the facts--'put they gay t him to understanutme so far from there being no apprehension that h° l : ree lf guardians would ret ur n t o th e o ld system, t h ere vva°,,e,badl one abuse of that system whi c h some b oar d or &not ( hsa, not applied for permissi on t o a d opt S ome o f the d m ee r:, asked permission to give re li e f as ivies, ot h e rs he . c at'," geited the pro, iety of granting out-door relief ton e en- t heir. dent paupers, and eth ers h a d taken certain ladies und r , „ff• protection, who had saddle d the parish with illegail e lie lr et 4 spring, and those boards begged they niiels' a re i"I to leave thos e women to go at large, while their ot"i'rAl were to he maintained at the expense of the told'parish these propositions been niade, arid let thcY' "re f t ligt s that the B oar d s wou ld b e gui d e d b y t h e pr i oc ire a - mended law if lett to the exercise of their own disc r ";b4t l The House sheulii also remember all the oblogaY ' ha p's° , been heaped on the Commissioners, of which had borne tie bruit, no matt, r abet e ere the g r.c.a d complained of, or by wh om th e y wee committed ; n would ask them tviietber they would find a Board of samee deans whe would not shrink foam encouoterieg th e t o oft abuse and misrepresentation cast on thorn, from oat' F ea rJa. the year to the other, far the pains they had taken in geeede" ing the iuterests of the union over which they P re d -l e fea* It had often occurred that the Commissioners ir rd teseror, tile acts of guardians, and take on themselves the ee ri t ese, sibility which the others refused to bsar. Ile he:iev' , t her if nitres of the Boards were consulted, they would e f f 10, abandon their duties altogether, then be deptive", - , advice arid guidance of the Cenimissioners. t " e i t ' eols away with the central authority, they would soon a c i a e alar evils sring up again whi c h h a d b e f ore b een co nspia, i ,ert end the result would b e th at t h ey wou ld fi n d it ne e t ' be res. to appoint a new body to suppress them. He wa s ' p e ace . fore, of opinion th a t i t was muc h b etter, until the pad law was establish e d on suc h a fi rm b as i s that the e r ' s i c ,aele, be no doubt as t o th e u n if orm i ty o f pract i ce whiee. t 0 0 0 prevail, to continue the central supervision as tha t : existed. He did not care about the time for wh' a e t the authority was to be prolong e d, f or t h at did not 6 ' ,e - t o° 4. principle of the measure. All h e as k e d was, t ; - io sat House should adopt the main features of the . 13 'l l i e utlr which he consid ere d th e es t a bli s h ment o f a centra' i ", e rity as the most essential. He would not, then, le a bo: allusion to the attacks of which the Coanoissioarr-siteo ;seen the objects. lit would abstain from all ra p ivie s that could only lead to personal recrimination. °Jeri's. his anxious wish that they should preserve the ° I a t hei e tion which the n a t ure o f th e quest i on requ i r ed; a "s. world thus have a bett er c h ance o f arriving e° somas the, measure, which, while it maintained the princiel i c e i o vit e Act would t.nd t o th e b ene fi t o f t h e public, are uteri the cliarecter of the iabourieg classes in this eer ote ei and veoull at the same tine afford the poor tha t P aoli a tion and that relief which he Was sure it was the . ,: ie perr every Englishman to ext en d t o th ose w h om h e found dent on him,—( Hear, hear.) oh set. Sir E. KNATCHB lifer, visited to make a for fie eat`e vations on the measure then before the suse. eerta tirely agreed in the opinion that the most in i reeer• clauses of the Bill would be ()tat discussed in Coler o - eiiir He would, however, confess at that stage, that, in '` ) J as over the clauses of the Bel, there were many he ee a ° , o ea t agree to. Ha had hope d, that when the Goite r / were introducing a measure for the amendmen t %pe e Poor-law, their efforts would nut have b ee n solelY e° ,,,s/ i to giving additional powers to the C o mmisin el asel y (Hear, hear.) He had certainly expected that w th e on off .• known feeling which pr e v a il e d t e c rough the . ta e3 ' would have induced hem to introduce some nte es ee -te'", '- relaxation into the sy s t em . H e l oo k e d upon the of out-door relief as one of con.iderahle, if not r, importance. He admitted that it would be 1-1 0 ' i ' e ' F arr A g relief should be given iii aid o f wage . : but at t° Soa n time he should ray, t h at w h ere they' usa ble parties without any fault, if th e y we"' but it'd- to receive any wages whatevor, it would bc to invest the Com miss i oners w i t h t h e power ofg e - ' te r ; out-door r e li e f t o sue t ) part i es if they should thine rrolera 11, would refer to cactimstarices that had tak er ai within the last s i x weL k s i n the union of A s lifor"; se ls' which he was himself coeneeted. Ali knew th e c . mimey of th e p reeeet winter; itimppecied )het qu nee of that. inel:m tics , several pia it persoes polled to epply fur out-door relief io the union th e The case was so grievous, and the pressure se urge! . e the Beard of Guardians. at ail tones reluctant to door relief cons. rated to grent it ; and aftereard e t " i f s et 0 pliance with th e Act sif Parliarrielit, reported the peed the Commissioners, .11,. held in his hand the replY ,eo de was given by those tunetiooe.ies. le it they remoi' err eeal et that before el-awing outaloor relief the guardianeb . emleavour to wiccrtato the urgency of the cla ire e i y mal; ••• ) receiving the head of thy. familt into the sv°ra' e etil" It appeared, Lowever, t° him (Sir Edward Kaa te / J 0 0 that such a rite:, tscui ibe most harsh that it the it cruel to take a falter into a workhouse, and a l e f a ie r mother and children in the meantime to ern' A '' — ce ' themselves. There had been ahead evi-61 y ample ee ote, the case in question toet the parties were really "1 1 , 3. 0% an they had been deprived of the oppertunitY °` f the • re course to au kind of work by the severity ° co de sea her. The Commissiocers afterwards real e ik at '- that the head s o f families should be r e quired t e h — i l ee et task-work. B ut t h ey L a d no such work at w hic' k se re . ploy them. They next recommended that ta j i , we" e" : should, if necessary, be found f or th em out of t "" 00 5 " house, but h e b e l ieve d i t was equally imr' sible 'arti' s VI • Bering the sev er ity of the weath e r, t o pus the P e a n r e d : such svm k. These families heel not since lave keyed, and he knew not how they had unless it were by the charity of their neigh bth- c - o s t w a t thought that a provision might be made for s e , o f ,‘ in the amended Act. lie hoped that suegest ien ei e set r ), kind ooulil be attended to by the Government. h' ,‘) n ecea sj ef e e et; say one word on the Central Board, the which he admitted, in order to carry the law j et , ct io ioee r o He certainly thought that the prayer of the Con le , op al , should be prolonged. but there might be differ ee `, -- eerai e eg as to the time to white!' its continua, ce ni ght b ee tho ug ‘ l His Right Hon. Friend near him (Sir R. l'a el e , ) , that a period of five years would be thn„,' - t e re abo; visible extent, while lie (Sir Edward l' f ' a facie e ; aas of opinion that three years would he bo peo c h - e He thought that, a , far as managemen t went' t 0 bu t t - e, should b e l e f t i n t h e h an d s o f t h e C o mmission e e r eon' a - would residue. the powers of legisl a tion as far as pits. , s:1-•uld for the second reading of the dill, pit tee hope of making the necessary alterations in c e , t eat t b s Lord II() WILK was one of those who believed tbe Act of 1834 h a d b een one o f th e most ben ° c o ren 3ja ; had ever been brought for Nerd, and that the et shit sioner who h a d rectonmended and the GovernMe" the gra" bad the courage to carry it were both entitled tn iiti oat!: titude their country. Entertaiting tlaese g e be oiga a he confessed that he had heard the debate ef t _ o f 0 , with great satisfaction, for after the denunciationasiustoesa cruelty of the New Poor-Law, which had her i h e a d bee ° month .after month and year after year, Wh ic i . s jpsn er :i rep: stied by the press, and in speeches efts cu b je . tne reis anal at meeangs, where they came fairly to discu s s n rer wer in ee sses e_ in the House of Commons. Ilefere those who to defend that measure they could not defend that 1 ,1, o f OP they c,ull nut find one sinele individual en either I" ,~