The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-15 00:00:00

7 Porear.) Upon the resolutions of the lion. member Worcester he would not now express any opinion. conceivi ng as he did, to have been proposed at a most inopportune and inconvenient moment. Their object, it was evident, was to retard the consideration of the till ; and such being the case, be hoped the house would be of opinion that he acted wisely, in the first place, in abstaining from all comment upon them; and, in the second place, in calling upon the house to join with him in opposing their adoption. Major BEAUCLERK supported the amendment, on the ground that it was his duty to support every 'notion likely to retard the passing of the bill. The house then divided— For the original motion 135 For the amendment ll Majority —l2l On our re-admission to the Gallery, we found Mr. HALC OMB addressing the house. We un derstood the hon. member to say, that he had sought t !veral opportun i t i es to express his opinions upon the but as yet without success. He was now ready to proceed, but should it be the wish of the house at a nce to enter upon the committee, he would defer it if the noble lord ( Althorp) would promise upon some particular clause of the bill--he would say on the clause which proposed the appointment of a Board of Control—to give him the opportunity of stating his e t keetions to the principle on which the measure was fo unded. Lord ALTHORP could not, of course, interfere Wi th any view the hon. and learned gentleman took of ," 40 subject, and the hon. gentleman must, therefore, exercise his own discretion. The house then resolved itself into a committee on the bill. Lord ALTHORP said, that before the first clause W aS proceeded with he was desirous of saying a few wseh in explanation - of some important alterations to - m,tch he int en ded to propose as regarded the powers tZ.Eranted to the commissioners. While his Ma -1 's government determined to propose the ahem t.'s whi c h h e i n t en d e d t o su b m it, t h ey a t th e same li tte felt t h at t h ey were i n no d egree i mpa i r i ng t h e effici ency of the central board, which it was essential : t mild be maintained full and complete. As the bill Present stood, it gave t o th e comm i ss i oners a ll th e rni,e immunities that belonged to the judges of the b'. This part of the bill it was i n t en d e d t o a lt er „Y giving to, the commissioners no oth e r p r ivil eg es has an exemption from liability to civil actions, leav-- 41 g them subject to criminal prosecutions or other pro ceeding, as in the case of an other class of magis trates. He also intended to deprive them of power to " in any cases that were cognizable before two ma gistrates. As the bill at present stood, it provided that all rules and regulations framed by the commissioners should be laid annually before Parliament. To pre vent any misapprehension on this point he meant to Propose that all such rules should, as soon as they came in force, be laid before the house, although they alight have previously received the sanction of the Privy E•ouncii. This certainly would not 'take much prac l.albecause difference, the house could at any ir e. address the King to alter any of the rules that in ht eem requisite. Another alteration he w ir t ed propose was in that clause of the bill sit s e u sal that after the Ist of June, 1835, no poor tever should be made out of the ruur fund to any person in employment. This s.. 4 Pu be considered as too strict, and might be pred with great inconvenience occasionally in po -41...a1l Parishes or districts. It was his intention, rk,v'cre, so to alter this clause as to give the corn lief;°ners a discretionary power to afford outdoor re th on therep rese nt a ti o n of the overseers of the district co at the case was one of great necessity, and that the ration would have the power to suspend the ope we"r°4 of the law in certain extreme occasions. These s:_ t _ ll .e only material alterations that he meant to v e 7P"st, although there were, perhaps, some other dorri amendments which he might offer-to the house .ftg the progress of the bill through the committee. o e first clause, which goes to appoint the commis progers under the bill, was then read, andthe Chairman stal esi ng that the blanks be filled up, and the clause ti,FPart of th e bill, °l . TORRE NS was not opposed to the p r i nc ipl e tr il l Which the present measure was founded, namely, ar rest the progress of pauperism, which, if not o ti f k , e lY checked, would soon absorb the whole rental the country. It would in effect go to establish an t tl k , raria n l aw o f t h e wo rst description, not by raising rlower classes to the level of the higher, bid Oe by re ing the high to the l eve l o f th e l ow . O n t hi s groun d re e aPproved of the principle of the bill, but in other i t :Pects he objected to it as a measure too stringent in iterations. He should propose to leave out the o f t after the word " appointed" in the eighth line I , e z clause and insert the words " not exceeding Ras ' t eal. '" ' y this it would be seen that his object poin o limit the duration of the commissioners' apt ti ent to five years, instead of its being perpetual L o rdlause at present stood. p e ,i; i ALTHORP did not at all think that the pr ? - th e n of.the hon. and gallant gentleman would in de , east affect the principle of the bill, of which, in the hon. and gallant member had expressed his I,ll. ) rehati on ,• but it was very unusual in acts of legis /,•',°,1 to make such limitations as the words proposed -,") for inserted would lead to. There could be no ne such a precaution, because Parliament could t () !' n Y time make such alterations in the bill, either as i l 4 l a duration or otherwise, as it might deem proper or ta es sary. He could not, therefore, see the advan e4 adopting this proposition. He hoped, how that the the proposition of the hon. and gallant fe e li n "'r would be discussed without reference to party /fli g h t % and he hoped that all other amendments that spirit, e Pre.Posed would be dealt with in the same Seienanci with a desire only to make the measure as re sts t and beneficial as possible for the general inte sho„, of th e country. (Hear, h ear. ) If at any time it no h. ,` be the feeling of the country, although he by Oke ea rls anticipate that such would be the case, to ( e fa 'sh the commissioners altogether, there could be no o l e t , e4 , l tY in doing so ; and there could therefore be no th ei - r s 'on for partial or temporary legislation respecting L aPpoinrment. th e 31 'd S A ND ON thought it would be equally for c oo 4 nprovement of the bill and the advantage of the - ',, t1., to adopt some such amendment as that now r r ° ,r s ed, and he would therefore press on the noble d ej e , a t.hat some limited time should be provided for the in e i F'n of the powers granted to these commissioners to a e 'r appointment. He should himself be disposed deei t Z d r i e extended term than five years ; but he vvas 13 , 1 apinion that there should be some limit. to pas s LL ER said that the house was about the sa ,, a most unconstitutional measure, something of Ye a ,. 'le c haracter with the Irish Coercion Bill of last opposfip,o,; and, as the character of both bills was equally e to the spirit o f t he constitution, the rece nt l a i d . p followeddown on passing the Coercion Bill should be dtlration on te present occasion, namely, limiting the the measure . The . house should consider , 0 1 . eti . o ss r m. ous power . which this bill conferred upon the , 4 Jini loners. He for one was 'pd to ranting Powers to any set of men. T Jo lien ose a .1 g a • lokok t , t e enormous pat ronage t h e bil l would create. li There a to 4 the appointment of nine locomotive commissioners, kegether with secretary, clerks, and other officials to q' the machine at work, and all to be paid. Another th e he wished to observe upon was, that although Poi li e t ° Tinissioners would not have the power to sp out th t he overseers of the different parishes through_ disi t ; country, yet they would have the power to e s t he them. O n t h ese grounds he would wish to a - N)pointment of those commissioners limited to wish eA at 'on of four years. Another reason why . he to lvii . , s4 , ,t l i f a o t r a limited. rather than an indefinite period whenn if after a time it should be found that the could do without any such measure as this, t e se a good . vestry system might be established, and tSirvices of all those commissioners and clerks 4, 4 1 , 1 11' 0 dispensed with, those officers would, .doubt to. seeking . for compensation if there was no limit period of their appointment. q l : 4l r. C. FE RG USSON said that if the measure be found to be of a highly unconstitutional nature tiiitttthe clauses should have assed through the corn- Q ad Some provision mighty hen be adopted at the lio es ' 3 ‘, lirnit the . duration o the bill ; but the proposi ey rio suggestions now thrown out appeared to be s een l r4 ealis satisfactory, for no two hon. members 41 exil e c i d to agree as to the term of limit a ti on t h at w as u nd ue named. The bill, as it at present s t oo d, such ec,llNbtedly u n constitutional. (Hear, hear.) N o was i t Pro b il i , ever before had existence in this country as sh o ed to be established by the present bill. ;, r ,! ) . ceedi rth . r 'tit, however, in the present stage of the 'ore fi t vote f or any limitation, but should wait for kr • ti A / < , f ,opportunity. th'rtant ''-OMB thought that it was exceedingly I ,e r neas. at this stage to determine whether or not h 'e oi , s _ure should be permanent or temporary, when ',;l ) wer s j. considered how entirely unconstitutional the bltsi o ,, e ' r ere that it was proposed to give to the com 'l th e , or rather to his Majesty's Government. Wblh present t bill they would have the control over ch th .os annually, in addition to six millions over e Y. had control already, making together a sum nearly equal to half the expenditure of the coun try. This was a great temptation to any set of minis ters. His only objection to stating five years as the limited period was that that would imply that the ap pointment was to "last for five years. He would rather reserve to parliament the power to limit at any time the period. He tyolild not go the lenth of saying that no commissioners ought to be appoir,ted, hut he would certainly limit their powers. Havinn , said so much, he would content himself with declaring his intention of opposing only the 13th section of the present clause. Colonel TORRE NS should withdraw his amend ment for the present, with a view to re-propose it at a subsequent stage in the committee. ' Sir S. WHALLE Y proposed that the duration of the commissioners' appointment should be limited to one session of parliament. After a few observations from an HON. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn), and who was wholly inaudible, Dr. BALDWIN could not consent to give to the Crown such powers as were conferred by the present bill to nominate commissioners, who were to have such extensive control over the whole country. Sir E. WILMOT objected to the word " three" in the clause. He wished to know from the noble lord if there was any objection that certain persons should be appointed ex o f ficio commissioners under the bill. He would name, for instance, the Lord Chancellor, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should not propose any amendment, but would suggest that the Board of Commissioners might be constituted something after the manner of the Board of Control. Lord ALTHORP said that the addition proposed to be made to the commissioners was more nominal than real. It was well known that although several of the Commissioners of the Board of Control were Officers of State, yet they never took any part in the business of that department, and were not at all re sponsible for any of its duties. In fact, they never at tended the board. The hon. baronet was not one of those, certainly, who had stigmatised the present bill as an unconstitutional measure, and therefore it could not be objected to him that he had proposed to give unconstitutional powers to some of his Majesty's minis ters. He ( Lord A.), however, did not think that it would be at all eligible to appoint as commissioners persons who could not attend, and it was clear that the persons named by the hon. baronet could not possibly do so. This very proposition had been under the con sideration of the Cabinet, but it was not looked upon as a good measure, nor deemed advisable to be adopted. Mr. HAL C OMB begged to ask who were to be answerable to the country for the due execution of those powers with which the commissioners were to be intrusted ? Who were to be responsible for them ? He could see no responsible parties at all. He trusted, before proceeding further, that the sense of the house would be taken upon this point. L — ord ALTH OR P had no hesitation in saying that he considered the 'Winners of the Crown responsible. If complaints were made against the Commissioners, and Parliament should find that they abused their powers, Ministers would be responsible to Parliament, and bound to see that such abuses were not suffered to . continue. The Commissioners would be responsible to Parliament at least to this extent, that they could not receive their salaries if that house thought proper to refuse them. It was not right, therefore, to say that the power to be vested in this board was an irre sponsible one. He did not think there was any person in the house who seriously thought that it was the wish of Government to vest irresponsible power in these Commissioners or in any other body, or that the increase of Ministerial patronage entered into their contemplation in proposing the measure. Mr. RG U S SON opposed the amendment. Mr. BULL ER entertained no suspicion that pa tronage was the object of Government. He only ob served that the measure was necessarily productive of extensive patronage, of which another Government might be disposed to avail itself, though he did not think the present would do so. Lord ALTHO RP explained. Col. E VANS objected to the bill altogether, first, because it was most unconstitutional, and he could not but express his surprise that a reformed House of Com mons should attempt to carry such a tyrannical bill as this by acclamation. He begged to remind the noble lord and his majority—for the noble lord might have a majority on anything he pleased to propose—but he must remind him that in the debate on the second reading every speaker, without a single exception, denounced this board of commissioners as a most execrable thing. He said the other night that the bill was calculated to insure, by means of patronage, the duration of the ministry longer than they could otherwise continue in office. He would mention one sentence in the report of the poor law commissioners to show what amount of patronage would be created, for they said that the powers proposed to be vested in the board were now exercised by no less than 15,000 officers. Now the whole of these were to be removeable at the pleasure of the commissioners or of the lords of the Treasury. If this was not patronage, and extensive patronage too, he did not know what was . It was ob jected to this board that it would be creating an impe rium in imperio, and certainly no such thing ever ex isted if this bill would not create it. Something not unlike this was proposed by Mr. Fox for administering the affairs of India. He proposed for that purpose the appointment of a board of commissioners consist ing of seven persons. It created a great sensation throughout the country at the time, and was, he be lieved, the principal means of overthrowing his Go vernment. This bill would give still greater powers, and more extensive patronage. Nothing like it was ever before proposed. It gave all the powers of Par liament, and of King, Lords, and Commons, to three commissioners. Before agreeing to this, they should at least know who these commissioners were to be, whether they were men of rank and station and high character; but they had no information upon this point. The noble lord ( Althorp) told them he did not himself know who they were to be. They were to be vested by this bill with the power of raising taxes, of making laws for the regulation of all parishes, of directing the expenditure of money, of acting as le gislators, judges, and prosecutors. So monstrous a proposal, so utterly absurd and unconstitutional, was never before heard of. (he member for London and the member for the Tower Hamlets took airs on them selves, and supported the bill, as they said, in con formity with the wishes of their constituents, not con sidering, as they said, that in so acting they were doing everything unconstitutional. He had the satisfaction of thinking that he also was acting in conformity with the wishes and the interests of his constituents in op posing this bill. He told some deputations which waited upon him that he would not support it. Even if he thought he was acting against the wishes of his constituents he would not support such a measure, feeling that he could not do so consistently with his principles. He had no hesitation in saying, that the House of Commons disgraced itself by supporting the second reading of such a bill. It contained no less than forty-six clauses, the whole of which were totally foreign to the poor laws. The hon. and gallant mem ber concluded by proposing an amendment, the effect of which would be to vest in the Crown a power of appointing persons of the legal profession to assist the Attorney and Solicitor-General in carrying into effect the provisions of the bill. The amendment being put, Mr. W. WHITMORE felt most desirous to see the measure carried into effect. He could not well understand what hon. members meant when they said it was unconstitutional to establish such a board as that proposed. It was a change certainly, but it was not therefore unconstitutional. Were not these commis sioners likely to be more accountable to that house and to the country for their conduct than the body by whom the poor laws were at present administered? was it no security that any regulations they might propose must, befor e they could be acted upon, be first submitted to a Secretary of State —that their conduct might become the subject of inquiry before Parliament _that the eyes of the whole country would be con stantly and anxiously fixed on their proceeding s ? If any abuse should be attempted by them government would not fail at once to interfere and put it down. But suppose the government to neglect this, was it to be supposedkhat the house ee wo u u n l e dn a e t f te le te neglect its h d e ut f y el ? t Not considering. such a ear trusted no wish that to e i t li m tlo then gthey would m durationof th c r i e r powe r,ethat t and blotdhe la i w n s. consequence poor of which th hade maladministration l ongdisfigu r disfigured country the Mr. GODSON was glad that he savv lion. me m b er conic forward and boldlyavea last w t that on h e e did not cons id er t hi s bill as unconstitutional, that such u a n ß c o o n a s rd ti t a u s t othat proposedThehon. w a le s e n in e t e h r er s% t . h y r o a n s p n e i c k a e l n or last said it was a change, and nothing more. He should like to know what remedy was provided hi case these commissioners neglected an inquiry. He understood the noble lord to say they might be indicted if they did wrong. He had no objection to this. No stronger power could be exercised over them. He could not but express his surprise at hearing it asserted that a Board with such powers as this bill provided was not unconstitutional. By the 13th clltise the2,--14-14 th power of making laws. It they name of orders, but were, in delegated to three persons the whole power or King., Lords, and Commons. Was not this . uncontituticr . p.l? Not only were they to mate laws, but to sit ia close court as judges to deteinnine whether their laws were obeyed or not. Suppose an individual guilty of con tempt, these commissioners were also to be the accus ing party before two justices. They would, therefore, be law-makers, judges, and prosecutors at the same time ; yet gentlemen said this was not uncolstitu tional. Considering this measure as one by which the constitution was suspended, he thought it ought to be limited in duration. _ _ Lord ALTH 0 RP said the hon. and learned gentle man must have misuhderstood what fell from him. In what part of the bill did the hon. and learned gentle man find that the commissioners were at the same time to make laws and to sit in judgment upon them ? By clause 86 of the bill it was provided that all the penal ties under it were to be levied by two justices. In no one instance had the central board to act as justices. They had the power to make rules, but not laws. They were to act as justices of the peace for the exe cution of the poor laws, and there was a particular clause which limited their power as justices to this. Notwithstanding what had been said by hon. gentle men, he was prepared to maintain that the measure was not unconstitutional. There were some acts of par liament, and many local acts, which conferred as great powers as this bill did. He was first attacked for the extent of power conferred, and now he was attacked for proposing to reduce it. The hon. gentleman had made an attack for diminishing the powers of the com missioners, but if those powers had been left complete there would be still greater complaints. If the power of punishing for contempt were left to the commis.. sioners, the hon. gentleman, and hon. gentlemen ge nerally, on the opposite side of the house would de claim loudly against that part of the measure. Sir S. WHALLE Y maintained that the commis sioners had a double power even as regarded the sub ject of punishment. In the first place they had the power of removing the assistant overseers, and, in the second place, by another clause, namely, the 40th, they could remove the masters of workhouses. He begged to ask the noble lord whether that was not clearly and distinctly vesting in the commissioners a double power of punishment ? He would object to that part of the clause which appointed three commis sioners, unless the noble lord by some alteration as to their powers removed his objections. Lord G. SOMERSET was extremely desirous to know whether it was the intention of the hon. and gallant member for Westminster to press his amend ment to a division ? If such were the hon. and gal lant member's intention it would not be necessary for him to detain the house with more than one or two words. Colonel EVANS did not mean to persevere in his amendment. Lord G. SOMERSET felt, therefore, that it was necessary for him to detain the house with a few ob servations. He should like to know precisely and de finitely the powers that were to be vested in the com missioners. Though a judicial power should be with held from them, still, as it seemed to him, they were possessed of powers perfectly tyrannical. Being parties m the matter, they had the power of repealing laws and putting into execution others, which savoured more of legislative authority than any other power he had ever heard of. He had frequently heard of the tyranny of Go vernments, and he knew that in some cases it had been productive of beneficial results ; but it was for the first time that he heard the principle of tyranny used as an argument for a measure in the House of Com mons. ( Hear, hear.) He confessed that the report of the commissioners on the poor laws was drawn up with much care and research, and that they had exerted themselves to obtain extensive information ; but at the same time that he made this avowal, he felt bound also to state his opinion that the commissioners seemed to have a pre-determined disposition to grant enormous powers to the central board, and to overthrow that mode of relief which had been for so many years esta blished throughout the country. Now, when he saw this disposition on the part of persons interested in the bill, he felt necessarily the more anxious to be informed of what was to be the extent of the power of the com missioners. He could not consent to any measure that would delegate to them important portions of the le gislature. He firmly believed that not only the poor, but even the rate-payers themselves, would be affected and injured by the passing of the proposed measure. For these reasons, he could not but feel extremely jealous as to the powers about to be vested in the com missioners. When the house was called upon to pass a measure, they should set what were the salaries and powers they were about to confer on the persons the bill involved. Lord ALTHORP—The power of the commis sioners would not be by any means so great as the noble lord and other hon. members thought it would be. Their power would be limited, since they would be compelled to act according to the provisions of the loth clause of the bill, viz., to a great extent as justices of the peace in the administration of the laws for the relief of the poor. It was provided at the end of the clause that they could not convict contrary to the pro visions of this act. Since that was the case they would not, therefore, have the power of acting as judges in cases in which they might be looked upon in the light of parties concerned. He thought that their having the power of removal from office of agents em ployed under them ought not to be looked upon, taking the matter in a constitutional point of view, as vesting in them a power of punishment. There were many persons, according to the constitution even, who possessed a similar power. Sir S. WHAL L E Y—But such persons did not possess at the same time the power of appointment. Lord A L THORP—The persons he alluded to did possess at the same time the power of removal and of appointment also. He admitted that the measure gave to the commissioners great discretionary powers, but he really could not see how these powers could be de signated with any truth tyrannical. They would be subject to the control of the House of Commons, and it was the first time in his life that he heard anything denominated despotism which was subject to that con trol. A despotism of such a description must neces sarily be extremely limited. The noble lord asked a question respecting the salaries of the commissioners. His answer was, that, whatever were to be the salaries, they would be voted annually in committee of supply. (Hear, hear.) Such a suggestion had been adopted in order to give that house more control over the commissioners in making rigid inquiries as to their conduct than it could otherwise have pos sessed. When the vote for their salaries was moved for, the house would have an annual opportunity of in vestigating their conduct. Col. E VANS—Are the commissioners to have the power of suspending acts of Parliament, and making of themselves new regulations which would refer to the whole country ? Lord ALTHORP—The commissioners were to have the power of making rules which would apply to every parish for which they were made, unless the said rules should be objected to by the Privy Council within forty days after they were drawn up. With regard to the suspension of acts of parliament, their power would only extend to the suspension of local acts. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, that it clearly appeared to him that they were called upon to legislate univer sally, not upon general facts, but upon facts which existed only partially, and in a few counties. It would be very well if counties or parishes of the latter description were made to comply with the provisions of the proposed act. He had a petition from the place he bad the honour of representing, 'signed by 27,000 of the inhabitants. They did not object to the principle of the measure, but they objected to some of its details, and more especially to the provisions about allowance, since they considered it unjust that such a provision should be extended to the county of Nor thumberland, in which the system of allowances had never before existed. Unless Government gave him some assurance that the measure should be limited in its operation, he should offer his most strenuous opposi tion to giving the commissioners such enormous powers as were contemplated by the proposed bill. Mr. C. PE RG U S SON said that the bill had his opposition until he knew whether the powers about to be conferred were temporary or permanent. By the t s o e ctohned commissioners.clause Theyr of a dinflict c c o o u u r l to f justicepunishment s • sgi ven f. ' t o cno r t contempt, t on e r m ac i p t ahny a d n tdchoayntestetghu provisiontwl yert were wase irresponsibleabandoned was rendered' fo r b their y t e infinitely less objectionable. He was ready to consent to the appointment of a board of commissioners, since the clause to which he had so much objected was to be mitigated. Colonel E VANS then withdrew his amendment. Mr. BROTHERTON was called upon to move his amendment, but the hon. member, as was under stood, consented to withdraw it. Mr. SLANE Y acknowledged the abuses of the present poor laws, and he believed that they were I pretty generally acknowledged. Government ha•l I been call: -1 zi pfi to introduce a measure to remedy, those aba I 1n hen 'they resolved upon briiiging in such a niea_,:u•~ l m. mombers ought to give them some credit, not listen to public clamour, but fairly consider the measure, and quietly and judiciously point out its defects. With respect to its defects, the hon. and gallant member for Westminster thought that the powers vested in the commissioners might be used for unconstitutional purposes. The evils that were to be remedied were great, and to remove them was it not necessary that large powers should be vested some where? It was an error to suppose that the powers ' about to be granted to the commissioners were so ex tensive as to enable them, if they so wished, to do away with the existing laws. Those powers were intended to enable them to make regulations as to those laws, so as to preient the abuses that had crept in even against those very laws. He could himself, if he wished to take up the time of the house, give instances of abuse upon abuse that had crept in in the very teeth of the law. If the commissioners were to have the power of laying down written rules as to how the money should be disposed of, according to Act of Par liament, he would ask whether their having such power would be called tyranny ? The powers of the Commissioners were to have only reference to the re lief of the poor, and to the following up of certain acts of Parliament which directed how that relief should be given. They should not look upon the measure as one of harshness and rigour, but as one that would be beneficial even to the very persons the hon. and gal lant member thought it would be injurious to. The question as to filling up the blank with the word " three" was then carried. On putting that part of the clause which related to the powers of the commissioners, Mr. ESTCOURT, as he really did not understand what the power of the commissioners was to be, should propose as an amendment that all the words after the word "act" down to the word "contain" should be left out. Lord AL THORP could not see for what useful purpose it was proposed to leave out the words alluded to. He would agree to the suggestion if he thought it was of any importance. Lord G. SOMERSET said that it had not been precisely specified what were the powers the commis s►oners were to have with regard to Acts of Parlia ment. Were they to have the power of repealing some, or were they to have no power except as far as regarded those Acts which related to the poor laws? Was the central board to superintend the regulating of the poor laws? Lord ALTHORP—The commissioners were to have no other power by the act except as far as re garded the laws for relieving the poor. According to the construction of this act, they would have the power of framing rules to prevent the contravention of it. Lord G. SOMERSET—That is not a precise an swer. The question was, whether their power would extend to the other poor laws? Lord ALTHORP—Their power will extend to them so far as their being justices of the peace. Colonel EVANS—By the 13th clause all the ponders granted by the other clauses of the measure will be vested in the commissioners. Mr. C. FE RGUSSON thought it better, before they went into any further discussion, to dispose of the amendment before the house. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned member for the Univer sity of Oxford wished to press his amendment to a di vision? Mr. WILK S considered that there could be no ad vantage in continuing the words proposed to be omitted. Lord A LTHORP, in the answer he bad already made, stated that he could not at present see the im portance of leaving out the words alluded to. He wished to be allowed time to see whether they were important or not. Mr. E STCOURT then consented to withdraw his amendment. Mr. JE RVIS had an amendment which, if carried, would be, in his opinion, an improvement to the clause. He objected to the words which were about to be read, that the Crown should have the power of remov ing the commissioners at will. He considered that those persons should be responsible to that house alone. A sword held by a cobweb would be continually sus pended above their heads if they were to be removable at the will and pleasure of the Executive. The amendment be would move would be to the effect that the commissioners should not be removable so long as they conducted themselves properly, and in a manner satisfactory to that house. Lord ALTH 0R P thought it essential that the power of removal should be vested in the Crown. The hon. and gallant officer objected that t-e, commis sioners were not sufficiently liable to be removed ; and now it was contended that they might be too easily removed. He thought it absolutely necessary that the commissioners should be removable at the pleasure of the Crown. He did not suppose that the hon. gentle man imagined that the government wished for any power over the commissioners, or desired to exercise an improper influence over them. The power of re moval, as proposed in the bill, gave a greater check to parliament and the country over them. If they were placed in the same situation as the judges, it would be requisite to have an address from both houses of par liament before they could be removed; but as it stood, the address or opinion of either house of parliament would be sufficient, as no minister would, under such circumstances, refute to remove the commissioner. Mr. LLOYD contended that the responsibility of the commissioners would be much greater by the adop tion of the mode suggested in the bill than by acting on the principle laid down by his hon. friend. The cases of the commissioners and the judges were not analogous. It was enacted that the judges should only be removable on the address of both houses of parliament, because they were often called upon to interfere between the prerogative on the one hand, and the rights and privileges of the people on the other. That was the only reason for taking away the power of removal from the crown in this case. There was no such reason in the case of the commissioners. He thought it would be better as a means of security that the bill should remain as it was. Mr. JERVIS would not divide the house on the amendment. — iiieanlendment was then withdrawn. The next part of the clause related to filling up vacancies. Mr. E STC 0 URT suggested that the remainder of the clause be rejected, as he thought it would be better to have a separate clause to allow the commis sioners to act, in case of vacancy, as if no vacancy had occurred. Lord AL THORP said a few words in reply which were inaudible in the gallery. The CHAIRMAN then put the question that the clause be agreed to. Mr. JERVIS felt it his duty to move that the clause be rejected, as he felt that that was the best mode of opposing the appointment of commissioners. It was not his intention to object at length to the pro visions relative to the appointment of the Central Board, nor would he follow the example of other hon. members in designating the powers conferred on that Board as tyrannical or despotic, nor in using other harsh terms ;_ but he believed th a t none wou ld d eny that a great degree of power was conferred upon it. He objected altogether to the principle of centraliza tion. He had always been of opinion that those who paid the rates should have a direct control in their ad ministration and distribution, but by this measure all control would be taken from the ratepayers. (Cries of "No, no.") Hon. gentlemen might say " No, no," but he contended such would be the effect in degree. Although persons contributing to the rates would have some ministerial control, they would have no positive control, because the distribution of the rates wouldbe subject to be controlled by the rules and regulations issued by the Central Board. The fact was that the rules relative to the distribution of the rates would be framed by those who were unacquainted with the local interests. It must be obvious that local cir cumstances must have an important influence on the distribution of the rates. He need hardly say that unless there was a paramount control in the central board it would be totally unfit to effect the object in view. In his opinion the principle of centralization was most harsh, and would be most oppressive in its operation. It was a prin ciple adopted from other countries, and from which the Government professed themselves anxious to depart in other matters. On the one hand the house was called upon to depart from this principle in framing local juris dictions by the establishment of local courts, and on the other it was proposed to place the administration of the poor laws under the control of a central board. The evils of the poor laws had arisen from their mal-administration under the direction of the magistracy, but he was satisfied that a change might be brought about by altering the law, instead of making such a sweeping change as was proposed. He objected to the powers conferred on the central board ; but before he went into his objections in detail he wished to observe, with respect to the amendment which the noble lord ( Althorp) proposed to introduce in the bill, that although it seemed to remove some of the objections, the measure, in his opinion, still remained liable to the most serious objections. It had been very justly observed by ne of the leading journals of the day that the persons who would have to administer the bill would necessarily become ' irresponsible from having the power of the judges conferred on them. It was proposed to take away from persons feel ing themselves aggrieved by the conduct of the commis sioners the power of recovering dathages. Instances might occur in which persons might be illegally confined or sub jected to degradation and disgrace through the mal-admi nistration of the poor laws by the commissioners. The noble lord proposed there should be no remedy by . civil action, but that an individual feeling himself aggrieved might proceed by indictment. Ile (Mr. Jervis) would ask what would be the effect of such an enactment with regard to a poor man ? He would have no opportu nity of vindicating his character unless by proceeding byindictment, which would be attended with an enor mous expense to him, as it was to be recollected that the cost of proceedings was to be thrown on the complainant. When they were considering this part of the measure they were bound to remember that persons placed in such situ ations might make an improper use of the powers intrusted to them. What would be the situation of the poorer classes under such a system ? It would operate as a vir tual denial of justice. The next objection he intended to make was with respect to the general rules to be issued by the commissioners. It had been stated, and he (Mr. Jervis) thought properly stated, by the noble lord (Lord Granville Somerset), that the commissioners had, by the means of issuing their rules, the power of altering the laws of the country. They had the power of making general rules, notwithstanding the existence of local acts; and by this means they would be constantly framed inconsistent with the interests of particular districts. Again, these rules were to come into operation before they were sub mitted to parliament. The noble lord should recollect that objections were last year made to allowing the highest legal authorities in the country to make rules and regula tions as to the practice of the courts of law without the sanction of that house. So strongly did the noble lord feel this that he proposed that the rules of practice to be agreed upon by the judges when so lemnly assembled should not be valid until they had been six weeks on the table of the house, by. which means opportunity would be afforded to any member to object to them who disapproved of them. Might not a similar caution be used with respect to the general rules to be framed by the commissioners? It might be said that they would be laid before Parliament within a certain time, but the evil in many cases would be inflicted before it was possible to bring the matter before the house. If the noble lord wished to meet the objections as to form, if not those in substance, he must admit that the commis sioners should not have more power than was intrusted to the judges of the land. There was another point with respect to these commissioners to which he objected, namely, that although they had no judicial functions to discharge, they were to have the power to commit for con tempt of court. Such a power did not exist in any mi.- nisterial authority in the country, and it would be most objectionable to establish such a principle. The noble lord said that he had security against the Improper exer cise of this power, at least to a coniderable extent, namely, directing that before committal there should be a summary conviction before two justices of the peace, and that these ex officio judges should not act as justices of the peace in such cases. This was, in his (Mr. Jervis's opinion, a very imperfect security. He (Mr. Jervis contended that no committal should take place without the intervention of a jury. He then came to the general powers conferred on the commissioners. He was anxious to have a direct answer from the noble lord as to whether or not the commissioners were to have the power of repealing existing statutes relating to oor ? It appeared to him that it was proposed to delegate to to the commissioners authority which the House of Commons had no power to give. It was proposed to confer on the commissioners rot only-the power of framing rules which were to have the force of laws, but also to repeal any act of parliament, or any rule of common law, w hich had hitherto been agreed to by the general consent of mankind. The only check upon the power of the commissioners was the mere fiat of the Secretary of State, who would not be respon sible for any of their rules. It appeared to him that dele gating the authority of the legislature in that way was foreign to the constitution of the country. He protested against adopting such a principle with regard to the poor laws. The noble lord might just as well, when he pro posed the appointment of the commissioners, have recom mended that they should be appointed to make laws rela tive to the poor laws, only subject to the control of the Secretary of State, as to have adopted the course which he had. He ( Lord Althorp) might, on the same principle, propose that the house should delegate its powers to the commissioners for tithes, or any other matter, as an easy mode of getting rid of the difficulties of legislation. The objections to such a system were, in his mind, insuperable. He objected to allowing the commissioners the power of snaking rules and regulations. He also objected to the nature of the offices to the holders of which this power was to be delegated. If he understood the nature of the office, the commissioners were merely ministerial officers, but they were to have indemnities and securities which were never granted to any officer of the state or the law. The assistant commissioners also were to have the same privileges and indemnities, and yet were not to be appointed by any proper authority, but by the com missioners themselves, to whom such extensive powers were to be delegated.' It ought to be remembered that the same degree of indemnity that was to be given to these Commissioners was not allowed to many who had powers delegated to them not of a ministerial nature ; for instance, in the case of the unpaid magistrates, to whom the country was so much indebted, who were constantly having actions brought against them. Again, the police officers of the metropolis were not protected, but were liable to actions for an improper administration of the law, and actions of the kind were constantly being brought. When they found that such a state of things existed with regard to the Magistrates and other officers of justice, were they not entitled to view with considerable jealousy the protection extended to these Commissioners in the exercise of the most extraordinary powers conferred upon them ? Would the noble lord consent for a moment to propose a measure to extend similar protection to all the unpaid magistrates of the country ? Would he consent to invest the magistrates with such powers and authority as those which he proposed these ind.viduals should have ? He had endeavoured to state as shortly as possible the grounds upon which he objected to the clause. He objected, in the first place, to it, because it took from the parties who contributed to these rates the control in their adminis tration. He objected, secondly, because it gave enormous and irresponsible authority to those Commissioners, which was dangerous in practice and unconstitutional in its ex tent; and also because it took from the house all autho rity in the administration of the poor laws, and divested it of all power of legislating on the subject. Mr. EWART understood his hon. friend to object to the principle of centralization, which he (Mr. Ewart) held to be the very essence of the bill. His hon. friend ob jected either to the principle of centralization, or to the scale by which it was proposed in the bill to be framed. If the objections of his hon. and learned friend were confined to the latter point, he (Mr. Ewart) thought that the ob jections applied to the machinery, and that the present was not the time to discuss them. If the hon. and learned. gentleman objected to the principle, he (Mr. Ewart) was prepared at once to meet him on the point. The hon. gentleman said that centralization was not indigenous, and did not spring from this country, but originated in an other. If, however, the principle was worth anything, he (Mr. Ewart) was of opinion that the observation of his hon. friend (Mr. Jervis) was merely a local argument. His hon. friend said that they were acting contrary to the principle of centralization in establishing local courts, and wished to act upon it in the administration of the poor laws. It appeared to him, however, that this objection had nothing to do with the matter in question. In one case the principle of centralization might be necessary, and in another local authority would be more advantageous. The principle of centralization, however, was not new in this country, for it was acted upon in the case of benefit societies. General rules for the government of these so, cieties emanated from a board, and he did not see why ge neral rules for the administration of poor laws in parishes might not be adopted. Before he sat down he wished to observe that he agreed with his hon. and gallant friend the member for Bolton (Colonel Torrens) that it would be better to limit the powers of the commissioners to a period of three or four years, when, if the system worked well, it would be easy to renew the powers. In conclusion, he stated that he gave his cordial vote for the principle of the clause. Mr. RICHARDS did not object to centralization as a principle, but did not approve of its adoption in this case: The people of England had been accustomed to the admi nistration of the poor laws for the two last centuries, and he thought that they should still have a control in their administration, for, generally speaking, although there were undoubted instances of abuse, they were well admi nistered. He thought the noble lord (Althorp) had acted injudiciously in not having the report of the commissioners generally circulated throughout the country before he brought forward the bill before the house. Under these circumstances he should vote for the amendment. Lord ALTHORP rose, but his opening observations, being uttered in a very low tone of voice, were very indis tinctly heard in the gallery. In reference to the proposi tion of the hon. member, that the rules framed by the commissioners should not come into operation until they had received the sanction of the house, the noble lord was understood to say that he thought the delay which would be caused by adopting such a course would considerably impair the efficiency of those regulations, though he ad mitted that it would not alter, in any material degree, the general provisions of the bill. The same hon. member had objected that he (Lord A.) had not gone far enough in taking away the immunities proposed to be granted to the commissioners. Now, those immunities had been taken away entirely, except in eases of actions brought against them when acting as a Board; for he believed that persons acting in their official capacity as members of a Board were not usually considered liable to actions of 'the kind. That was the only case in which he , proposed that the commissioners should be indemnified for their actions. The assistant commissioners were to have no indemnity of the kind, but only such as was usu ally granted to justices of the peace. The hon. member had alluded to the taking away from the commissioners the power of committal for contempt ; but the hon. member I;ad spoken of contempt in the usual sense of the word, in stead of the legal sense, which mot an obstruction offered to the proceedings of the court, by refusing to give c,:- deuce, &c. (Hear.) In the next place, the hon.-IL:ea.!) r had objected to the power invested in the control board of making rules. Now, it did appear to him (Lord Alt.!Jeri') that such a provision was absolutely necessary. The ques tion for the house to decide was, whether they should con tinue the administration of the poor laws under the present system of separate magistracies throughout the country, each acting upon different principles and under differez.t feelings, or whether they should bring the whole under Gee uniform system? It appeared to him that it was most ee sirable that such a general principle should be adopted. It was well known that in different parishes different arrange dmegrenetesaof success. had s b n e e e e n .No adopted, oneand found to egu torworklatin couldwonhdifferebent found to apply equally to all parishes. Under the present state of the law the parishes in the south did not know what regulations had been adopted, and with what success, by the parishes in the north ; and the northern parishes were equally ignorant of the arrangements of the southern parishes. But if one board of commissioners were appointed to overlook them all, it would be their duty to see that the measures which had been found successful in one place should be adopted in another ; and he thought that under such an arrangement they had a better chance of arriving gradually at a perfect administration of the poor laws than by any other means that could be suggested. It was admit= ted on all hands that the present state of the poor laws stood in need of great change, and that the authorit..!- , s by "out the laws were carried into effect should be also cia:nged 4 otherwise he could see no reason why the amended le:or laws should not be equally evaded as the former ones. It had been said by an hon. member that many measures for the regulation of the poor laws had from time to tittle been passed without any beneficial effect: Now it al)= }:eared to him that the reason of that ill success atten-: dant upon all previous enactments, vas the fact of there being no superintending authority appointed to see to ;heir execution. (Hear, hear.) So convinced was he of this, that lie should say even of the present iheasure that' if it were not to be enforced by some such dulYilipointed! authorities, it would prove equally nugatory as :Miner, ones. He fully admitted that the word " centralizatie s 9' was a new word in legislation, but hon. members should not be afraid of it solely on that account. The question was, whether it would be a good system to hafts one dnly appointed body as the seat of Government in these efraiil or whether it was desirable to have different parochiet air= thorities, all working upon different principles, and et** sequently none of them acting with one common view or understanding upon the matter ? Upon these considera tions he did hope that the committee would consent to the establishment of the Central Board, and grant them such powers as might seem necessary to carry the principles of the bill into effect. - Sir J. SCARLETTfuIIy admitted the advantage which would result from the introduction of an uniformity of sys tem in the administration of the poor laws. He thought it exceedingly desirable that such a system should be adopted as far as was possible. He was of opinion alsto that it would be advisable to appoint some Central Board, for the purpose of watching over ths admi nistration of the laws throughout the country.—• (Hear, hear, hear.) One of the great defects in the: present administration of the poor laws, were the loci!', feelings and prejudices whi c h op er at e d i n different parts of the country, and tended to multiply the diversity of ay/s -tems prevalent in the various localities. Under these circumstances, therefore, it did appear that it would be id vain to attempt the introduction of a more beneficial sys tem, as long as these local interests and powers existed. He was inclined, therefore, to approve of the appoint ment of a local board to see to the execution of the law in their several districts. But this was a very different thing' to the proposal for investing those boards with legislativd power. He founded his objection in this matter to the provisions of the 19th clause, by the wording of which it appeared that Parliament, having found itself incompetent to frame a set of efficient rules and provisions upon the subject, proposed at once to delegate their legislative func tions to a set of commissioners, with unlimited authority. Ii that were to be passed into a law, it appeared to him that these commissioners might, if it should seem fit to them, repeal all or any of the laws already existing upon the subject. This would be nothing more nor less than creating an entirely new legislature, with power to enact what it ple_sed, subject only to the approval of the Crown. Now, when it was reflected that the admini, stration of the poor laws was already so frequently the subject of litigation and dispute at law, was it not too much to intrust in the hands of such a body the framing of all the laws relating to the subject? Tliere. were cers tain acts of Parliament, having a local application only iu certain townships and parishes. Were the commis sioners to have an unlimited power to repeal all these at pleasure? Would it not be better at least that Parliament should set out by establishing some general principles and rules, and then appoint the, commissioners to see that these principles were acted up ta? With such an extent of au thority he could see no objection to the existence of such a board, which would at once relieve the magistrates of a very unpleasant part of their duties, as well as the rate payer and all other parties concerned. He really thought that the variety of evidence furnished by the report of the Pow Laws Commissioners afforded sufficient data to admit of some general principles being adopted by the house upon the subject, instead of leaving it all to the discretion of three gentlemen commissioners. ( Hear.) One of the great inconveniences of the present system of poor laws wa, the power of magistrates to compel the parochial authorities to give relief, and he would propose that in all parishes where there existed a local vestry the magistrates should no longer have such power. The house would per haps allow him to state a C6SC in point, which occurred to a friend of his, a Mr. Walks r, one of the most efficient ma gistrates in the county of Lancaster. That gentleman had been appointed to the superintendence of a township, and by his assiduous and judicious exertions had in a few years reduced the poor rates from 1,745!. to 500/., without ex citing any feelings of discontent in any part of the com munity. One of the steps which he adopted upon enter ing on his official duties was to request the magistrates would not use their authority to compel him to grant relief after he had decided against so doing, which they, having full confidence in his humanity, agreed to. It was certainly true that there were cases in which much hardship had resulted from the refusal of overseers to grant relief ; but he really thought that, as a general principle, it was better that the local authorities, having a knowledge of the parties and of the merits of their claims, should be intrusted with the dis cretionary power of so doing. He knew one instance of a pauper applying for relief to a gentleman, who was one of the overseers of the parish, and who offered employment on Isis own farm to the applicant, which, however, the latter refused, and then went five miles off to a magistrate and got a compulsory order for relief. No system of poor laws could stand against that. (Hear, hear.) He would not detain the committee longer than to repeat his deter mined hostility to the clause appointing the Board of Com missioners as it at present stood. It was but a new system of legislation, and a species of despotism (Hear) which it was his internal conviction the country would never be brought to submit to. (Hear. ) Mr. PEASE supported the clause. An Host. MEMBER, who spoke from under the gallery, was also understood to support the clause. Mr. SLANEY thoughilhe gradual system of improve ment which would be introduced by means of the Central Board of Commissioners was the only possible plan to be adopted. Mr. BENETT spoke against the unlimited authority proposed to be given to the commissioners. Mr. HALCOMB rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh," and other tumultuous vociferations. The lion. and learned member persisted in addressing the committee, but not three consecutive words were heard in the gallery. At length he was understood to say that he would wait till hon. gentlemen at the bar had the kindness to give.him their attention. He could assure them that he would not sit down till he had had an opportunity of making himself heard. (Renewed disturbance. ) Mr. HUGHES (as we understood) abruptly rose to propose that the Chairman do report progress. An Hon. MEMBER would most cord►ally second that motion. The motion, however, was not taken further notice of, and— Mr. HALCOMB continued upon his legs, but was in audible for a considerable time. He wak sorry to trespass upon the house (Hear), but as it was a most important subject (Hear, hear), he had used his best endeavours to offer his sentiments to the house (Hear, and laughter), notwithstanding the indecorous interruption of hon. mem bers who came down to the house without having pre pared themselves with any information upon the subject about which they proposed to legislate. (Hear, hear.) He did hope that house would not persist in this sort of conduct, else in justice to himself and other hon. members who ventured to speak their sentiments he should feel himself compelled to move an adjournment. (The hon. member enumerated some instances where the parochial expenditure of the poor had been considerably reduced of late years by the exertions of the vestry.) lie thought that a vestry appointed from those possessing property in the parish, or consist►ng of those sanctioned by those men s am ee i t d ha l t o n u o d of property, would, if the system were generally intro duced, work much general good (Disapprobation), and obviate the necessity of the dangerous innovations contem hbpoylant.eedxmpber3me• s t bs h ien e rg p m r : e ol s uli r dd t i b slao il po l kp . roab ( ta l tt ' i h iloe e nb h i o ol n if cries of " Divide," and " Question.") Mr. C. FERGUSSON admitted that extraordinary powers were delegated to the commissioners ; but if the legislative power was given them. There of was a power administration of • • cat rying the act into execution, a power no doubt that deserved to be watched, but there was no le gislative power. He (Mr. C. Fergusson) heard of many objections to the bill ; but, strange to say, he heard no one plan proposed to remedy the crying evils of which et ery one complained. England was now in such a state that she could not exist twelve months longer if some change were not made. The local authorities were unequal to combat the growing evil. Magistrates, landlords, ever seers, and all were intimidated ; everything grant d was .htelmie"e•bililibld:r concluded jttat,,. • • 1., . C`.:.S:ty for the trial of same new scheme ; awl an un::,,r„, practice of relief was the one proposed, and it destrved entouragement, when the various systems .0 the c: r.;