The Sun. — London, England, 1847-05-22 00:00:00

amluoet.c. AMP. !IMPERIAL PA ti Ll AMENT M 21. Th , SPV,AKER F o " Ochyck. LORDe' A : e.1 , ,N D EN rs. The Lords' aim edtileets 1., tee g 3eilz 'were considered and agreed to:— Ciaridk.'s Patent Asphalie Company. Doddington .W curry D.% ision. Scottish Union Leuraece Company. REPORT!es. The following reports were brought up: — Cleveland-square, St. James's, Westminster, Improve ment. Alancheser ani Birmingham and North Staffordshire Junction Railway. The reports on the following Bills were further con sidered and agreed to: — Bridge House Estates Debt. Commercial Gas Light and Coke Company. Dunfermline Waterworks. Glasgow, Dumfries, ani Carlisle Railway, and Glasgow, " 1 - 8 , 1 e3', Kilmernock, and Ayr Railway (No. 1 ). Imperial C ont i nenta l Gas Association. erxrkri n r et d t on Free B Pl y m outh and Tavistock Road (No. 2). Pa yne's Patents Assignment. I w w o a ib Gas.ridge. Improvement (Lendal bridge and approaches). THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed : Bitkenhead Commissioners Dock Acts Amendment (Construction of New Docks and Alteration of Cul vert). Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway (Deviations between Duntocher Limeworks and Bow ling, s cee ) Dublin, Dundrum, and Rathfarnham Railway (Extensidn to Stephen's -green). Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Branch from Navan to Rolls). General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Railway Branches Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct. and Glasgow Southern Terminal Railways Amalgamation. Great Western Railway (Branch to join the West London Railway, Widening and Enlargement of West London Railway, and Branches to Hammersmith, and to join the London and South-Western Railway near Lambeth). - London Sewage Chemical Manure. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Newcastle, -• Atiniskinnan, and Baltraana Deviations). Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Extension from Athlone to Galway). Newry and Enniskillen Railway. Norfolk Railway (from Thetford to the Lowestoft Rail way near Reedharn, with a Branch to Halesworth). Runcorn Gas. Sheffield Markets. Staffordshire_ Potteries Waterworks. Waterford Valley Railway. waterford f Wicklow, and Dublin Railway. x or , W estminster‘,, tl, Improvemc nts. 71.1 dsor, Staines, and South-Western Railway (Staines ry incisor, S ta i nes, Th ° Ascot and Wokingeam, with Branches). to Windsor, &c.) and South-Western Railway (Rich mond Lor d LAW OF MARRIAGE. nm • -- , 4tucus HILL appeared at the bar in his ho.l.elu.aalnedosutupmone as Comptroller of her Majesty's House •. amd t h called upon by the Speaker, he ~.• It o at he had, 'in consequence of the desire of the • of °so, presented their address on the subject of the law _ ntarriage to her Majesty, and be had received her 0 'lttrilands to return the following answer:— ;-., 111 ,,,..:t._have received your address relating to the law of t o . '''`ge: my consideration shall be given to the subject which y our address refers. CROYDONyV " COMMERCIAL GAS COMPANY :" Mr ice,tr AND COKE BILL. ; C oin •. moved that the order for reviving the - lllell ,_lttee on the Croydon Commercial Gas and Coke Belt be discharged, and referred to the Committee of .eti ".,7 - Agreed to. Mr: 0 11 EPORTS ON RAILWAY BILLS. . Bi ll REENE moved that the reports on railway ',!* which by the standing order of the House ought frpoe considered upon Thursday, be considered on the 28th day of this instant May.—Agreed to. B i T IINGTIAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION, AND DUDLEY RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILL. S POONER moved the third reading of this Bill. oft hi s C HARLES DOUGLAS asked for a postponement e „ = ;_a Bill for ten d a y s , un til they should see what ter r°tMn the leg a l p rocee di ngs a t p resen t pending in the m ur .. l of Queen' s B enc h wou ld h ave . • . 1t , 3 , 1 ; R USSELL said that he trusted the House not y valid if t o th e sugges ti on o f the Honourable tuber. if the obj e ctio n urged was a good and tip of one ' ;_e, it ou g ht to h ave b een urge d on th e bringing tak en I t e report; an d a f ter t h e di s cussion which had have b P a" , he did n o t see th a t this motion ought to een Pass an , made- If the House would resolve not to measure in reference to which legal proceed taken i 34 111.--(e ri t would be quite easy to detest any Sir c . °8 of " Divide, divide.") the II DOUGLAS said that he would not divide t ° cal ° l 4 th ie u P° ll 'the question. All he desired to do was not divuett:trlention of the House to the fact, which was . a ccordingl y wit h e the l i on. Gentleman. He would The 13i 11 draw his amendment. flats the altMerarlionljinitTT:iheEinSNa read ; a third i time. NAVIGATION-LAWS. A Presentea a petition against any navigation-laws. • Mr. PE CASE OF MARY DAWSON. i RRA ND presented's petition Irons a working l i l c " r . l of the n ame o f Dawson, in the neighbourhood - of ei ghleY, in the county of York. complaining of the treatment which his daughter, Mary Dawson, had re ceived from her employer, a Mr. Ellice. The petition alleged that his daughter was a weaver in the factoryof Mr. Ellice, where she had a warp in hand which ' was so bad that she could not weave. From some dis pute which arose on the subj• ct, she left his employment on the 10th of March. In consequence, she e a brought before the magistrates at Keighie), but nothing was done • with her at the tim , .. She got employment in anotner e e mill, where she continued rill the 30 b April. On that day, without any notice, a constable came and took her to Prison. She was taken through the streets to the rail . way station, and hurried to Walc , .fit-ld, where she now committed to the House cf Cerrectien for a month. ' • Re now gave notice that art, r the holidays he would !rye that th e p et i t i on b e pr i nte d w ith the votes, with • I Object of bringing the subject before the House. " L°II2I %NSATION TO TENANTS FOR AGRI CULTURAL sotwanie r r c a l INGESTRE presented •LO IMPROVEMENTS. petition from the and occupiers ef land in the c unty of Stafford, no t , n h g that the seeurity ot tenure was the exeeption d ttrrciierreualae, na ttrid asu p r r e, ay i • o il e t , t . i tn e pe G u o; a r i t ic e „ m i k t ir , •t v. w r Liu n ; t d . grieultural itnere.venients. The N ora NAVIGATIO N-LA S. sam en, b LORD also presented pelition fr-in 4,000 eZpre sk i e "' n ging to ships out of the port ot Lo‘sci.,n, of intern ng their regret that an intention was exert, •sed gavetlerthg with the navigation laws, which would givi,, effe " of throwing theta out of' employment, tb:rteerf(etr-rgedtht e T t h r e bread to foreien sailers. They prated, flar e d wi e th , that the navigation-laws should not be inter- Noble Lord moved that the petition o the . e eravigation Committee. Mr, y 8 „ t''AL REGISTRATION BILL. geode n fs b 'lTH presented a petition from the sur tion rewsbury in favour of the Medical Registra- Si r ti. ROMAN CATHOLICS. to xi. INGLIS presented a petitition from a place Bedfordshirett against any further concessions to the 44 ° A ?4 , .11 Catholics. I'ajdOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE FOR THE Lord HOLIDAYS. . - JOHN RUSSELL said—Sir, as it was under etodd last night that the debate on the Poor-law Amend ment Bill would be finished in the course of to-night, I • beg now. to move that this House, on its rising, shall ad journ until Friday next. The motion was agreed to. THE BANKRUPT AND INSOLVENT LAWS. Mr. BOUVERIE wished to ask a question of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Departntent. Last session he had charge of a Bill which proposed to apply a remedy to some of the serious evils which many persons in this country were now Buffering from some of the defects in the bankrupt and insol vent laws, but he withdrew the Bill on the understanding that the Government would introduce a Bill in the course of this session for a similar purpose. He understood that such a Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and he therefore wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend what state the Bill was in, and Whether there was a reasonable prOspect that that Bill, or some other for a similar purpose, could be passed into a law during the present session? Sir G. GREY said that since last session this subject had been under the consideration of the Lord Chancel lor, and recently the Noble Lord had introduced a Bill into the House of Lords, which - was intended to be referred to a Select Committee. He could not express ary opinion as to the period when it might be expected in that House. STOCK-IN- TRADE EXEMPTION BILL. Sir R. H. INGLIS sad he wished to ask another question in relation to ano , her important Bill which Stood No. 24 on the orders of the day f r that night. It Was the Stock-in-Trade Exemption Bill. He wiNhed to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet could n ,, t make such arrangement with his colleagues as to altive this Bill to co me on at such an hour on some day that a fair discussion mi.:ht be taken upon it. . Sir GEORGE GREY was tot aware that it was in tended to offer any opposition to this Bill. but at all av , nts, if the did n t tz , t to the Bill till a late hour, h.. : 1 ,1 1 , It. to low wl,a: into hour. t REY—After twelve o'clock. Atitt:t :ULTURAL STATISTICS BILL. Mr. Et )i-t , EBA N KES wished to ask sh' Right Ron, Getitleitk,ii the \rate ereAdent of the B iard of Trade wh ether he Intended to proceed with this Bill, d if tvo did, when? Mr. T. M. GIRSON—Not till after the holidays. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that after the Ist of June orders of the day should have precedence of notice.; of !notions upon Thursday. ha(t.s.::IIO.,FiI.IFIILCNEE!',OR PUBLIC RECORDS. rec . e s p r ... wished to know whether anything ne towards the en eti-ri of en o ffi ce for the tin 01 the public records ? co z i idv ti r . ati ? bu ß ( E )f Y said that the subject was under the the Government. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL. si • as "L b r e . : D ENISON wished t o k now w h en t h e E ce le- before the C ommissioners Bill wou l d b e aga i n b roug h t Hous e ? Lord RUSSELL was understood to say that THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MAY q 2, 1847. he would bring forward the measure on Monday, the 3lst n he :Yt.,u1,1 state to the House the course pursue wikh ;.,•sp,eet ;() tie H\ I !,R+ ).ND BILLS.— ADJOURNED DEBATE. M.. I i B mov. d that the unier ut the day fur the adj x. , ed deoutp theieupon be dischaig.d. The Com mittee had m-t, azAi from the progress which they had made, he thought it wou!cl render unnecessary any further debate upon the subject. The order was accordingly di! , ,charged. PRISONS BILL. Lord MAHON rushed te know when the Prisons BA would be brought before the House ? Sir GEORGE GREY proposed to proceed with the Bill on Thursday. the 3d of June. ENCUMBERED E. , TATES (IRELAND) BILL. Sir F. TUESIGER foled the Nob!e Lord when it was propoird to proceed with this Bill? 1.... rd JOHN RUSSELL said that he had promised the It corder of Dublin that he would give ample notice before that Bill %% as proceeded with. He also took that opportunity of stating that he would proceed with the miscellaneous estimates on Friday next. POOR--LAW COMMISSION. Mr. FERRAND to know if the estimates of the Poor-law Commission would be taken on that evening. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the estimates would not be proceeded with before further progress was made with the Prisln,' Bill. INTERMENT IN TOWNS. Mr. MACKINNON wished to ask the Noble Lord if' I intended to proceed with this Bill:during the present seseion? Lord MORPETH said that be saw no prospect of passing the Bill during the present session. Mr. MACKINNON would like to know if he saw any prospect of passing the Bill next session,—(Laughter.) Lord MORPETH said that he was very confident of being able to pass the Bill next session. USE OF SUGAR IN DISTILLERIES. Mr. BARKLY asked the Chancellor of the Exche quer what are the additional facilities which he intends to give for the use of sugar in distilleries, and whe ther it is his intention to prop4e during the present session, so much of the Act of the 6th George IV., c. 60, as forbids all attempt to distil in combina tion with grain, or checks use of sugar in ex isting distilleries, more especially of the 4th clause of that Act, which prohibits distillation at the same time from sugar and grain; the 45th clause, which requires six days' notice to be given by the distiller of his intention to use sugar; and the 46th clause, which requires an interval cf one month between distilling grain and sugar, or sugar sad grain separately. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he had stated on a former occasion that he did not intend to bring forward any measure to prohibit the use of grain in distilleries. He could only give the same answer to the Hon. Gentleman as he gave to the lion. Gentleman (the Member foteblontrose) a few evenings ago, that he would give every facility, for the use of sugar, that was cf nsistent with the existing laws. The chair man of' the Board of Excise had also got instructions to the same effect, and to give every facility for that purpose. He thought that be had a paramount duty to keep up the revenue.—(Cheers.) To the latter part of the ques tien of the Hon. Gentleman he begged to say that he had no in:ention whatever to repeal any part of the Act whtch had been passed for legalising the distillation from sugar. With respect to the Hon. Gentleman's ob servation, that one m ,nth was necessary before distil lation from grain could be resumed after distillation from grain hid been used, he begged to observe that; it was quite a mistake; tor, in reality only six days' notice Nimbi necessary before the work could be resumed. In fact Rowe and Co., of Dublin, and Messrs. Litman, of Rat cliffe Highway, were now working upon that system. He therefore thought that any interference with the excise was unnecessary. Captain BARCLAY explained that he did not wish to throw the slightest blame upon the Government, fur he aid not inculpate them in the least for allowing dis tillation from grain. ACTION OF THE POOR-LAW. Mr. FERRAND said that a handbill had been cirete lated in Sheffield, stating that a person named John Darwin, who he understood bad formerly been in highly respectable circumstances, had lately died in the work house, aid that his hod/had been cut up into quarters, and sold. It was further stated that the mutilated mem bers had, five weeks afterwards, been taken to St. George's burial ground in a coffin and interred. The question which he wished to ask was whether any information re specting the circumstance had been communicated to the Government ? Sir GEORGE GREY said he had never heard of the handbill till the lion. Gentleman had given notice of his question. There was no reason for supposing that any such occurrence had happened there, and he did not think that the reports were sufficiently authenticated to warrant further notice of it. THE PAUPER DISFRANCHISED. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN asked the Solicitor- General for Ireland whether the fact of having received relief under the Poor law Act since the registering, dis franchises the voter; and in the event of his reply in the negative, to ask whether it be the intention of her Ma jesty's Government to bring in a •Bill on this subject during the present session. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for Ireland said the question involved great difficulty; for Committees on special cases had differed from each other invariably, and came to contradictory conclusions. It appeared that in England, after the passing of the Reform Bill, any person receiving relief within a year of the county registration was not entitled to be registered. But in Ireland the feet of receiving relief did not disfranchise the county voter. The I•ame.law affected the burghs. The CHANCELL OR LOAN OF £300,000. r y e l d a o n f f d o:r h b e e y E vote X w Ca y 0 E 3 , 0 7 00 11 s i a o i r d t b h e e Relief al Commission,Alar ch 1 ast, a3 o , n ne t xh h te e . would move a similar vote its the House on F oa r n id , security of the rates, and he now gave notice th at Mr. HUMS hoped a t t he same time the Right Hon. Gentleman would give an account of the manner in which the other sum had been expended. SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION BILL. Mr. SPOONER, in reply to a questien, said there were only seven names opposed to the Bill. He did not know whether these seven gentlemen were necessarily seven wise men; but he begged distinctly to sae that he would proceed with the first reading of the Bill at the earliest opportunity, without con sideration of the convenience of these Lion. Gentlemen, Ile had presented a petition from a woman who was committed for what was called an illegal offence. Sir G. GREY said—A case had been brought to the Home office in reference to the matter to which the lion. Gentleman alluded, but there was nothing to convict the magistrate concerned in he matter of anything like illegAlity in tis conviction in question. Crd GIORGE - BE&TINCK said—He Wished to ,hserve, wi;tl reteret.ce to the m. , tion for a vote of 300.000/ for the rel of works in Ireland, that he hoped the Government wi:ulti be able to tell the country how it oeuurred, thin, the number of persons ooployed in lawi on the relief w,rks was reduced from 700,000 to 244,000. Mr. LABOUCHERE explained that it could not be ..xpeeted that at present there should be a great number of persons erepl,:yed in the relief works in Ireland. As soon as the new system could be carried out, their euiploy ment would cease. It was no fault of the Govern ment that the system of public works had not been dis continued a long time ago. Mr STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that he considered that the present was a fitting opportunity to complain that the second question which he asked had not been answered, he wished to call the attention of her Ma jesty's Government to that question, and inquire whether it was their intention to bring in any Bill upon the subject. Tne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Government had determined to take the matter into consideration. DISTURBANCES IN PORTUGAL. Mr. HUME wished to ask a question of considerable importance. It was rumoured that her Majesty's Government had so far interfered with the affairs of Portugal as to send out a deputation there to make certain arrrangements under the superintendence of ColonellWilde. He wished to know what powers or directions were given to this officer, as to any interference with the belligerents, and whether such a course would not cause a danger of this country being involved in a war. It had been stated also that the British officers had been treated with in suit, and the nation thus subjected to degradation. He wished to know whether the Noble Lord was prepared to lay upon the table any papers or instructions given with reference to this subject. Lord J. RUSSELL said that at present the Govern ment were not prepared to lay upon the table the papers sought for until the proper time came. They would then be placed before the House. Mr. HUME then gave notice that immediately after the holidays he should bring the subject under the con sideration of the House, in order that no uncertainty might rest upon a matter of so much importance. POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION ACT. On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill, Mr. BORTHWICK rose, but was for some time in audible, in consequence of the uproar preva ilin g in the House. The Hon. Gentleman said, as he had main tuißed a consistent course since the period he had en tered that House, it became incumbent on him to ex press the opinion he entertained, that the Bill was only an amendment of a previous Act, which embodied prin cipl,s of the most unconstitutional character, and he felt obliged, therefore, however painful it might be to him, to record his vote that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. The Ministers, in the course of the present debate, had not shown much inte rest In the pre,ent, question. On the last night of the debate he saw on one bench the Hon. and Learned Mem ber tor bath auuu,lly , en. , sing. On a bench behind the ct:aira.t.litthl4e7o:lo:l'll tilt M-4•ist'.rial stretettcu the Hop. 2%:einort at, bench the re lay the !wail of the Ordnance, and the Gus ernsGeot ; vi,hile the R;ght Hon. Gen tit:ber4nthe I :owe ::,: t : tad , Ise the aulguwAt , of the polet— i,yatre.intostehde c a e n n o t t r h e e , r as lq i f to 1,, Since. the ioveiy are sleeping real Go sleep th At with them." —(Laughter.) Hon. and Learnt d Member for Bath had attacked the Honourable Member for Kearesborough in a very pers'mal man ner, and had insisted that his opinions or sentiments were entitled to no consideration, but it should be recollected that that Hon. Member represent ing the feelings of the. great body of the people. He was neither a h)pocrite nor hunter for popularity, for his clients were not those who returned Members to Par • liament, but the poor. It was their opinion that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough sought to obtain. "No, let the candied tongue lull absurd pomp, Or crook the pregnant binges of the knee, Where thrift may follow fawning." These were not those who opposed such theasure as the present. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the ' Member for Bath referred at some length to the works of Grotius, Putfenciorf, Vattel, and other authorities, and stated that he believed in his conscience that his (Mr. Borthw;ek's) Hon. Friend the Member for Knares bo:ugh did not know whether Grotius lived in the reign of George 111., or during the reign of the Emperor Adrian—(Loud laughter)---which was, in his (Mr. Borthwick's) estimation, a most im p pro r and unc alled for observation, for one Member of the Howe to make to another. He knew that the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was familiar with the 43d of Elizabeth—that he might have got knowledge of Grotius—that he might have read every line of Puffen dorf—and that he had read the work tee which he made so much reference, namely, Mrs. Trollope's novel, " Jessie Phillips ;" but how did these authorities affect the ques tion before the House ? Did it not stand as it did hefore ? And did not the Hon. Member for Bath stand accus.sl of having spoken on subjects which were not before the House ? The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath told them that the law of Elizabeth was one in fact with the law of 1834, and the Noble Loid at the head of the Government told them that the law of 1834 was simply passed to correct the mischiefs which had occurred in 1795 ; or, as he phrased it, the evils which had prevailed towards the end of the last century. The Noble Lord had stated that the magistrates had at that period decided that no diffe7ence was to be made between unexpected misfortune and deli berate immorality. Now this was plainly unconstitu tional, and if that be true it was e q ua lly pl a i n th a t th e same proceeding was unconstitutional wherever it might be practised ; and if it was unconstitutional, therefore, in the magistrate, it was equally plan that it was tin constitutional in the authorities at Somerset House. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to prove from a sup posed case between two labourers, one industrious and the other depraved, in order to show that a magistrate would be plated either in a position of difficulty or would be compelled to commit great injustice, by committing the steady with the unsteady man to the workhouse. The law of Elizabeth took good care not only that the poor should have relief, but that in respect of work being provided, that they should have that with a good and comfortable lodging. The Noble Lord seemed to him to adopt a fallacy which seemed very general, namely, that the description of the Bill of 1844 was a central control over a heal adminis tration. Now his objection to the law was, that it took• the unalienable rights of the poor from them, and re moved them from out of the pale of the constitution. A man might render himself liable to the law from the moment, from an unforeseen calamity, he had been s'ripped of his independence. The labourer of England possessed a lower nobility of spirit than the aristocracy of England—they might say what they liked to the con trary ; but so it was. The Bill before the House did not touch the'principle of 1834, which left the power of the Bill in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners,he must however admit, that the machinery introduced into the present Bill was a great improvement upon the former system. When the Bill went into Committee, he was determined to move that three should be inserted instead of five years, for he believed that in three years the country would discov e r th a t it was wrong in principle and tyrannous in its operation. Mr. MILES—The 13111 was merely for the purpose of changing the nature of the Commission, and he was as tonished, after the speech of the Noble Lord, that such a Bill should be introduced, for it was nothing else but a most elaborate defence of that Co — mmission, both from their own acts, and the charges of Mr. Chadwick, who was secretary to it.—(Hear.) It was his intention, after the assertion made by the Noble Lord last night that he was not particular to the form in which this matter should be regulated, to give him his support upon the second reading of the Bill. The poor had an ingdienable right to relief, but if he reasoned by analogy from the law of Elizabeth, be would see that the able-bodied had only a right to relief in a certain way. They should have a test of destitution still more strong than the one they had ; for he must say that the present test was slipping littl by little from under their fingers. The Noble Lord made another observation that if the power was left with the board of guardians they would act with more severity than the Poor-law Commissioners, and he begged, as far as his knowledge went, to contradict it, for whenever any interference of the board of guardians bad taken place, it was always to induce the Commissioners to take a somewhat more merciful view of the particular case submitted to them, than the law seemed to warrant. If the case were referred to the quarter sessions, the poor would be still less likely to receive a lenient considera tion, as the quarter sessions was a place, in most cases, influenced by party, and made a place of declaiming and debate. - - Mr. B. ESCOTT said that he had heard no reason adduced in that House to prove the superiority of this new system over the old one, and therefore he should vote a g ainst it. The Noble Lord bad admi tted, in his speech of the previous evening, that this Commission was an experiment liable to many grave and serious objec tions. Under the new system, all the officers, down to the pettiest officer in every union, would be under the control of the Government, and that was not the least of the very grave objections which could be urged against it. Had the Hon. Member read the report which the Poor-law Commissioners had decreed to be laid on the table of the House on the very day on which the de bate upon the second reading of this Bi 1 was first taker:, and if he had, would not its contents furnish a very suf ficient reason for not giving his vote in favour of the measure? That report had stated, that in spite of all the distress which existed in the country, the commis sioners had been enabled to keep up their rules and re gulations tolerably well. He thought that the feelings of the commissioners, instead of being those of gratifi cation, ou;ht to be of bitter shame for their past conduct. The only defence which could be brought forward in defence of the introduction of this system, was the absolute incapacity of the present system, and the present commissioners. The Noble Lord was not a man to bring forward this measure without some very strong and cogent reason of the kind. He defied any Hon. Member to show that the present poor-law had ever been beneficially administered without some partial disregard of the orders of the commissioners. This, howe'Ver, did not help him to vote for the new measure until some reason was adduced which could show him that the new Commission would be productive of any betterre• sults. It was a long time after the passing of the law of I 834,,that the Poor- law Commissioners had the courage to issue rules and regulations respecting the out-door relief to the able-bodied poor. They did not do so till forced by the Right lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary. They issued ene then, restricting the relief of the able bodit d poor to the house alone. It was, however, soon found out that this would not act, and they were obliged to issue a second rule, providing that out door relief to the able bodied, under particular circumstances. From time to time orders of one kind or another have been issued, but in no instance have they been generally acted on. There were whole unions that have con • ducted the relief of the poor, without any reference whatever to the dicta of the commissioners. A great deal had been said about the ' workhouse test, but he submitted that it had been a failure. The object of it, it was said, was to distinguish the industrious man from the idle vagabond; but had it done so ? No, but rather its practical effect was to drive the industrious and honest pauper from the work house from the dread of incarceration, and being half starved; while the idle vagabond went into the House, and filled his belly at the expense of the rate payers. He cared for nothing so long as his stomach was tilled. He declared therefore that the boasted test had completely failed ; and 30 far from the present measure satisfying the just expectations of the country, he was persuaded that it would prove most delusive in its character. The country would not consider it an improvement. lie considered that the acts of the Poor law Commissioners were illegal, because, although the Queen, Lords, and Commons might pass acts binding public i n uebi tli t f i c i. Poor-law x o u u K n l d t L ry }fi;Byn he idl l might denied that they could delegate to others their power of d o ing so. sa th id ie t t hat however bad the pre vious presenthave e been, ne a n h e a ggr feared aea t theio aggravation of the evil. Under the present peculiar circumstances of the country he thought it was singularly unfortunate that the Government should have placed °r it belt in thi s pos i t i on, b ut i t was st il l mote unfortunate f the reopie to find no relief from the gri e v a n ces under which they had been suffering, under the operation of this former law. He thought this the more unfortunate as the Government had commanded the respect and esteem of the House, and of the country, by the intro duction of the poor-law measure with respect to Ireland. They had certainly earned his esteem for their conduct, and t he,. therefore, Ithe more regretted, indeed, it was excee:ingly painful to him to complain of the manner in which this Bill had been framed. _ _ He did expect that some measure of relief would have been introduced calculated to mitigate the inconvenience under which the people suffered by this law. He was wholly disappointed, and therefore his regret was great. He was extremely gratified to find the Noble Lord so full of confidence, but he (Mr. Wakley) had always remarked that the Noble Lord was never so bold as when he was wrong.—(Laughter.) He always ob served that he adhered with extraordinary pertinacity to his opinions when he was in error—(Continued laugh ter)—but that when he was right he entertained con siderable doubts. He was, therefore, greatly gratified that the Noble Lord had made such a speech on the last night, because he answered himself by anticipation. — (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) heard the Noble Lord of 1834, speaking against the Noble Lord of 1847, and he preferred the Noble Lord of the former period. —(" Hear," and laughter.) The Noble Lord felt very strongly on the subject of a Minister of the Crown being a Poor-law Commissioner, and in 1834 be (as him self informed the House last night) prevailed upon Lord Holland not to introduce the clause authorising such an office into the Bill. Last night the House had seen the Noble Lord (probably influenced by some sinister advice) make such a proposition. A proposition more unfortu nate was never submitted to the House ; it was one of the most unconstitutional which could be well conceived. What was it ? To give to a commissioner a legislative d executive power and functions.—(Hear, hear.) What could be more dangerous ? how would it work ? Why, every board of guardians in the kingdom would be political agents, and instruments set to work by design ing people, to accomplish some sinister object. What then was to become ot the poor ? Nothing more unhappy could be conceived by any monster politician. tie was sure that it did not originate with the Noble Lord but he was sorry that he had not assigned his reasons for the change which had been induced. Now what did the Noble Lord expect would jealous the e ff ect of thi s mea sure ? Were the Ministry of the reputation of the Poor•law Commissioners ?—(Laughter.) Surely it was impossible that they . could be envious of their peculiar popularity.—(Continued laughter.) Did the Right Hon. the Secretary, for the Home Department expect that he was to rejoice in the name of Poor-law Commissioner.—(Roars of laughter.) He (Mr. Wakely) should certainly call him by no other name.- r (Lnughter in which Lard John Russell and Sir George Gray /joined.) He should, certainly, on all questions relating to this subject, address the Right Hon. Gentleman as the Poor-law Commissioner sitting at the Home Office.— (Laughtf-r.) What were the questions that would be most commonly asked, and which the Poor law Corn• missioners would have to determine ? lie (Mr. Wekley) did not think the subject bad engaged the attention of the Government. lie thought that the Noble Lord had adopted, in 1847, the suggestions which were repulsive to his mind in 1834. Were Ministers aware of the questions they would have to determine? It would not do to shelve matters by saying, "we have referred them to the Poor-law Com missioners." That system was at an end. The com missioners of that time sat in Somerset House, and were not under the control of the Secretary of State. The Commissioners of this Bill sat in the House, and w:s bound to answer all inquiries. The comissionerers of that time could be the scape-goats of the Government no longer; they were already sent into the wilderness with not only their own sins, but the sins of the Govern ment to bear. But the Noble Lord, if he could read his speech of the other night aright, did not appear to be displeased with their conduct. Did he mean to hold it out as an example to his colleagues, the new commis sioners? If he did, the country would not be satisfied, and the House would probable see the spectacle of s dissolution in July, a meeting in Octcber, and a new Government in the February following. What ques tions did they suppose they would be asked? They would be asked whether such and such changes of diet should take place at such and such unions, and questions of a similar description. He would quote on spe cimen, for, in a matter of fact, one example was as good as a hundred, from a return laid upon the table of the House. In January, 15346, this letter was ad dressed to the Poor-law Commissioners by the clerk of the Bromley Union,—" Gentlemen,—l am directed by the Board of Guardians t o i n f orm you that they have agreed to resolutions at a meeting held yesterday to make the following alteration in the dietary of the union workhouse:—on the Wednesdays and Saturdays, for dinner, a pint and a half of soup and four ounces Of ' bread, in lieu of seven ounces of bread, and on Thurs days, for children, ineat-vudding in lieu of bread and cheese. The Board of Guardians request that you will sanction this arrangement.—l hare, &c." A copy from the medical officer of the union was subjoined. The first letter received by the union on the subject, and not a very prompt letter either, for while that of the poor law guardians was dated 17th January the reply was dated on the 31st. The letter said, "I am directed by the Poor-law Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 17th instant, respecting the pro alteration in the dietary in use in the Bromley workhouse. The Poor-law Commissioners request to be informed of the special reasons, if any, which led the board of guardians to entertain the proposition for alter ing the existing dietary." The Member for Tavistock says, " Hear, hear," as if this trifling request were to furnish matter for graver deliberation. The Hon. Member should recollect that the persons who preferred tbis request were themselves the rate-payers, and would, therefore, be obliged to be ,r the expence.—(Hear, hear.) The board of guardians addressed another letter to the Poor-law Commissioners, dated the Bth February. He trusted that Hon. Members would give him their attention, it could well be done in that thin House. There were questions that would be continually asked of the Members of the Government, and he (Mr. Wakley) would certainly invite persons to make these applications.—(Laughter.) He would be ready on every occasion to bring them forward—(Continued laughter)—and it was just possible that, under such cir cumstances, they might bring on a crisis. The letter said, " Gentlemen,—l am directed by the board of guar dians to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ult., requesting to be informed of the special reasons, if any, which led the poor-law guardians to entertain the proposition for altering the dietary in use in the workhouse. The board of guardians desire me to state that the proposal to alter the was made in the first instance by a member of the board, who gave his reasons for the alteration. A committee was appointed to con sider the proposal. The committee's report was sub mitted to the board, negatived by them, and the resolution to alter the dietary as at first proposed was confirmed." There were two paragraphs annexed. One of these stated that all the expenses which would arise from the substitution of soup for bread twice a week for dinner might be estimated at 50/. per annum, taking the average of a hundred inmates. This sum the Committee were prepared to defray them selves, because they felt that they would not be justified in placing it upon the rate-payers until they had bad practical experience of its working. But the Poor-law Commissioners were determined that they should not have that praetical experience. Would it be believed that in this union it only took 501. 6s. 4d. for the maintenance of 140 persons ? On the 12th of February, 1846, a communication was received from Mr. Chadwick ; this intimated that a change was inexpedient, unless its relaxation was sanctioned by a medical practitioner.—(Hear, hear.) But it was said that the new Board would not act in this manner. He (Mr. Wakley) was glad to hear the Noble Lord at the head of the Government last night state that relief would be liberally given, he was delighted to hear this, but he would like to know what they would do with such guardians as those of the poor-law union. When they began to administer the law they would find the difficulties insurmountable.—([fear, hear.) He did not think they would be able to give effect to it, and he must say it was a course which he never expected the English Government to pursue. As he had already observed, the directors of the Bromley union adulated only of 5 of meat to an able-bodied man, and three ounces to au able bodied woman in the same time. This was on Sunday, while on other days they were only allowed 7 oz. of bread and 1 oz. of cheese for dinner. Would the new board maintain such a dietary as this ? Yet this was one in which the Poor-law Commissioners refused to allow the least increase. He would now contrast the dietary of this union with that given to criminals in the House of Correction. In the Bromley Union on Sun day the allowance for an able bodied man was, of meat, 5 oz., and for an able-bodied woman 3 oz. ; of bread a man 6 oz., a woman 5 oz. ; of gruel or milk porridge for supper, 1 pints. On Fridays and Tuesdays the allowance was, of suet pudding, for a male 16 oz , and for a female 10 oz. The supper on those days was 6 oz of bread and a pint of gruel or porridge. After Sunday there was no meat, and on the other days which had not been mentioned the dinner was but 7 oz. of bread and one of cheese. Now, compare this with the diet of the criminals in the House of Correction, of which, however, he did not complain, as he held every man or woman, whether confined in a prison or a work house, ought to have sufficient food to keep them in a state of health. For breakfast, on Monday, the criminal allowance was, of cocoa, one pint, and bread, 6 oz.; there was hero no distinction made between men and women. It was disgraceful to make such a distinction, and doubly disgraceful as had been done by the commis sioners, to make no addition to the woman who had an infant suckling at her breast. Of meat, the criminal had 6 oz. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, he had each day also 6 oz.; or meat four days in the week. This was the allowance of the criminal, while the poor woman who had broken no law was left to starve on 3 oz. of meat in a week.—(Hear, hear.) Was_ , the Noble Lord aware of these facts ? And Woo, it was impossible that he could be contented with this state of things. If he has his Poor law Commis sioners seated in that House, these questions must be forced on their attention, and their explanations would be required. r(ow he (Mr. 'Wakley) asked, was it for the safety of the country that such subjects should be continually mooted there ? He knew where the balance of an evil would be found. It would be in the board of guardians, and they would rule the Government. The poor, being weak, would go to the wall, and that being the case, what would be the feelings of the poor of this country. It was his opinion that such a feeling of in dignation would arise amongst them, as to endanger the institutions of the country.—(Hear.) He was con vinced, too, that a more unconstitutional measure could not be brought forward. Was this sys tem of centralization to go on increasing, at every step they took, the power and influence of the Government. The Noble Lord at the head of_tke Government must be award that the power of the Poor law Commissioners with regard to the dismissal of officers, such as clerks of the board of guardians, masters of workhouses, school-masters, matrons, and others, was immense; and did the Nob*. Lord think the country was ignorant of all this? lie was astonished that the Noble Lord, who was an advocate for a free constitution, who had always expressed himself jealous of increasing the powers of the Crown, should bring forward such a mea sure as this. The Noble Lord might be convinced that the existing Government would not abuse the powers it would give them. But was the Noble Lord prepared to trust them with another Government? The Noble Lord ought to look forward and to guard against future Go. vornments having it in their power t o i ncrease t h e i r in fluencehsspe speech o la u s g t h n o i u g t h tt,hceomlecopuntterlyy, The Noble Lord, in failed to show the ne cessity for this measure. The Noble Lord was for a central bea rd. Well , they had t r i e d suc h a control with re g ard to the poor-l aw f or r the last thirteen y ears, and it had f a il e d ; o if fhe they were to es t a bli sh a central protection of the r i c h rate-payer, why should not ' controlbut and superiors did him justice. He did not b el i eve there would be any difficulty in establi s hi ng such a law. He was not afraid of the boards of guardi ans st still, the poor have a judge to see th at hi s rulers for , but if the Noble Lord feared them, why did he not reconstruct them ? The Noble Lord last night sp o k e o f the Act of Eli z abeth, and pointed out to them th e manner in which that Act was abused, but in framing the Bill of 1834, what did the Noble Lord do with the magistrates who had abused it ? Why, he placed them over the board of guardians, thus rewardingthem for th • gua eir misconduct instead of visiting them with condemnation. But really and truly the constitutions of these boards of guardians ought to he reformed. Their election at this moment was a perfect farce. Instead, however, of reforming the sys t e m, the existing commission was to be abolished, but all the defects and evils of the system remained. Under such circumstances the public have great reason to com plain of this Bill. The public expectation would be disappointed by it. No charge was to be made in the new poor-law, and he very much feared that great and serious would be the disappointment of the people in that respect. All the evils with regard to out door relief were to be continued, and no honest, indus trious man in time of need could procure relief without walking several miles for it. The present law in all respects was inconsistent with the principle of the — A - et of Elizabeth, and especially inconsistent with regard to the able-bodied poor. IT —l 3O ll this branch of the subject they had heard much from the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, but the Hon. and Learned G e ntleman directed his attention only to the idler. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman forgot the honest and deserving workman, who had lived and whose only offence was that he could not procure work. Was he to be punished for the misdeeds of the idler? Under the operation of the Act of Elizabeth, relief was ad ministered to him without demur by the piri6h authori ties, but under the new poor•law he had o walk many miles to get before a board of guardians, and then, perhaps, he would be refused relief, without being allowed an interview with the board.—(Hear, hear.) The Act of Elizabeth was one of the noblest statutes that ever was passed by the legislature ; it gave secu rity to the property of the country, and it provided— , very justly, in his opinion —that it was the duty of pro perty to protect and provide for the poor. The mainte nance of the poor, in fact, was one of the conditions upon which property was held. In a state of savage life all property was in common, but one of the first processes of civilisation and the establishment of private property was to impose on it the maintaining, or, at least, the duty of assisting in maintaining the poor, who were willing to work and bad no property of their o,vn. That principle was acknowledged by the statute of Queen Elizabeth, but by the Aet of 1834, it was almost abrogated. Ho firmly believed that the conduct the Government was pursuing in this case was most unfortunate—he said unfortunate, because he scarcely knew any other word he could more appro priately apply to it, and he felt strongly convinced that it would be attended with the most disastrous conse- q'ienecs to the Government. But what was greater evil, and perhaps of far greater moment to the _country, it would be most fallacious in its results and consequences with regard to the poor. Throughout the country, a feeling had arisen that this House was hostile to the interests of the poor ; and yet those who warned the House of this, were told by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath that he could point the finger to individuals who, while they advocated the rights of the poor with regard to the poor-laws, were hypocritical in their sympathy for the poor because they did not support an extension of the franchise. Now in his opinion nothing et uld be more conducive to elevate the character of the people of this country, or more calculated to increase security to the -property and institutions of the kingdom, than that the labouring population of the country should be repre sented in that House. He always found that the labour ing man gave the most independent votes, because he was not surrounded by circumstances that controlled his opinions, as those which influenced the conduct of those who held a higher position in society. He was, therefore, the more anxious to extend the franchise to them, and so far as he was concerned the remark of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was not applicable to him. Now the labouring population and middle classes were opposed to the new poor-law, and if Government would take his advice, they would repeal it and return to the good old principles of the statute of Elizabeth, rather than pass this Bill. Under the present system the workhouse was a gaol. It was true. the working man might leave it, but for what ? Why to starve ; for the whole design of the workhouse system was to force the poor to abandon it, instead of provide them with ac commodation, and the result was the poor man was separated from his wife, and allowed to hold no conversation with her, though both should be on the verge of death. (Hear, hear.) Nay, in cases where the poor man and his wife, seeking relief in the workhouse, were placed in the same apart ment they were under the abominable new poor-law system precluded under very heavy penalties from hold ing conversation together. No wonder, then, that the industrious population were so much averse to—and no wonder that they should have viewed this Bill, which could only insure the most riged operation of the law, without relaxing its bad features—with additional alarm. Will the Noble Lord say what he thinks the conduct of the Commissioners should be with respect to those cases to which he (Mr. Wakley) had alluded in the Bromley Union and in the Margate Union, The Noble Lord must be aware that, under the Poor-law Act, it is pro • vided that old and infirm persons might receive relief if they obtained a certificate, signed by the magistrates to that effect. Mr. Waddington, a respectable medical practitioner, granted a certificate to a person of the name of Sotheran, an order was granted for his relief, and relief was ac cordinrzly given. On the following week, however, the board refused to administer the relief. The old man applied again to the magistrates, and they told him that they could do nothing else in the matter, and that he must sue the board.—(Hear, hear.) A letter was writ ten to the Secretary of State upon the subject. The an swer returned was, that the letter was sent to the Poor-law Commissioners and the Secretary of State could not interfere in the matter. Would the Noble Lord say how he expected his scheme to work in such a case as this. Would the magistrate's order be the go verning power over the Government? He thought the present measure a most unconstitutional and dangerous one to the country. He objected also to the measure on the ground of the enormous amount of patronage which it would place in the hands of the Government. There was no less that 5,000 persons already holding office under the Poor.law Commissioners. Believing as he did that the present was a most impolitic arrange ment and most disastrous to the poor, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill in its present stage, and should vote most cordially for the motion of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrancl), and upon every future stage of the Bill, if there should be a division, he should give his vote against the further progress of the Bill.—(Loud Cheers.) Mr. VILLIERS felt bound to say that in the course of the four speeches which had . been made, nothing had been proposed, nor anything agreed upon. The Hon. speakers seemed to differ in every point, except one, that was diseontent with the commissioners. The Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. P. Borthwick) thought that the old local system was perfectio❑ itself, and he had the utmost confidence in the conduct of the workingeclassee. He only wondered that since the Hon. Member had been in the House he had never brought himself to give his vote in favour of iner.asing their power. The Hon. Member also condemned is the strongest language the conduct of the commissioners. The Hon. Member for SomersetAire was a very inte resting character in this debate. Th.: t Hon. Gentleman came forward and stated that the power and 'Authority of the central power should he confirmed and strengthened. The Hon. Member for Winchester (Air. B. Escott) op posed altogether the existence of the board of commis sioners, and thought that the local systems were con ducted in the best and wisest manner, and he referred to several places in which the b cal boards had acted with great niscretion. There was one thing which the Hon. Member complained of strikingly in contrast with the statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. That Hon. Gentleman complained of the paupers, getting fat, and living in a state of ease and plenty, while the poor out of the workhouse were miserably clad and ill-fed. The Hon. Member for Finsbury also spoke highly of the conduct of local authorities. In a speech delivered in the year 1839, the Honourable Member complained very strongly, however, of the conduct of these local boards. The Honourable Member talked very loudly about the good old times of Elizabeth. He (Mr. Villiers) did not wish to make any rash assertion of ignorance with respect to any Hon. Member, but he certainly thought that those Ifon. Members who talked so loudly of those palmy days of Elizabeth, were not aware of the harsh and tyrannical nature of the laws of that period. He saw in all those diversities of opinion, and the absence of any suggestions from Hon. Members on the subject—a most cogent argu mtnt for some central system of management for the poor. Ho thought that there had been a sort of field open to those persons who were willing to believe that the rich were always ready to oppress the poor. And he thought that the popularity so easily obtained would at once fall to the ground when all tl ose extravagant charges brought forward by some Hon. Members were met by a firm and convincing disproof. He should most certainly support the measure. Whether it was the best measure that could be suggested, he could not then stop to discuss. He thought that the central powers ought to be armed with more authority ; and he thought that, by the present measure, that power would be conferred on that board, and thus respect would be gained for its authority, and power which it did not now possess. As it existed before, an attack on the Commission formed an easy road to fame by any person wishing to obtain for him self a little popularity. The people of this country were now fully assured that the measure was one which had produced great and beneficial results to themselves and the country at large. The more the subject was consi dered the more convinced every one would be that the statements made against the central authority were un founded. The central board bad a great many abuses to correct, and Lord Althorp defined what these duties were at the time the commissioners were appointed. The first thing they had to do was to abolish the system of allowances; the next was to deprive magistrates of the power of giving out-door relief, with several other duties of a different and arduous nature. If, then, it had been admitted that the greatest success had at tended their labours, what ground was there for the accusations made against them. One party thought that the workhouse system could be carried out over the country. Another party said that no ono at all should be put into the workhouse. The Honourable Member for Winchester, and the Hon. Member for Finsbury said so, and that every one should receive relief who applied for it. (Mr. B. Est cott said he never said so. The Hon. Member said so, but what he meant was another thing.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Villiers) maintained that a test was necessary, otherwise the indolent and the profligate would be put upon the rates. He thought that the internal disorgan isation at Somerset-house, however discreditable it might appear to the parties who were mixed up in it, was not accurately judged. He believed that Mr. Althorp, who appointed the commissioners in the first instance, appointed discreet men. He appointed Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. Nicol, and it was not till Mr. Chadwick introduced a different mode of adminis tering the law from what they bad sanctioned that con fusion arose which led to his dismissal. And he (Mr.Vil liers) did not hesitate to say that ever since that time ho had exerted himself to the utmost to discredit the system and to bring odium upon it. If the charge of having neglected their duty could be maintained against the commissioners it was a grievous charge, but be denitd that these charges were ever proved before the House, and the Law Officers of the Crown bad fully acquitted them of the imputations. The case of the Andover workhouse had been frequently re ferred to in the debat-, and all the abuses exposed in that workhouse had been generally attributed to the comm issioners • but he maintained that nothing was mo re unjust. With respect to all those disgraceful proceedings, there was not one tittle of evidence 'o show that the Commissioners were charge .able with them. It was to the total disregard by which the Andover Board of Guardians of the rules laid down for their regulation, that all these abuses owe their origin.' He appealed to the Committee who had inquired into the case of that workhouse, and who were the most hostile Committee of inquiry that ever sat in that House, whether the statement which he now made was not perfectly correct. When the Noble Lord, therefore said that he had no confidence in the re sults of that Committee, he only said what the j ust i ce of the case demanded. What did that Committee, that Select Committ ee d o , w h en they oorain aced their labour6? They threw open their doors to the public. And gave permission to the pubi press to be present at the proceedings. Now, if a report of the Committee was considered necessary, the proper course would have been to have taken an official report of all that had taken place. Instead of th it, however, a garbled and partial report was allowed to be published to the world, which left it to out of the power of the public to form a correct judgment of the case. Thi s matter was brought before the Committee, and a desire was expressed that they should report the proceedings to the House, de die in diem, but they would not hear of such a thing, and continued to permit the press to pursue the course they had commenced. Such was the conduct of this Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. IVAKLEY said the evidence was reported to the House and printed. Mr. VILLIERS was bound to believe the lion. Gentle man's statement, but he had been led to believe that there was a disinclination on the part of the Committee, to have the evidence adduced before them reported to the House. The press, as he had stated, were allowed to be present ; charges of a personal nmure were made against individuals, and reports, conveying them, went forth to the public, without the House being informed of the course the Committee were adopting. If the Committee was an open one, when the House Lad intended it to be select, a report to that effect should have been made to the House. There was a difference between Select and Secret Committees, although the Hon. Gentleman for Shrewsbury seemed to entertain a different opinion. Jr a Select Commit tee more Members of the House might be present, but Members of the House might be excluded from a Secret Committee•room ; but if the Members of either chose to throw open their doors, they were bound to come to the House and state what they had done. It was uxual when Committees allowed their proceeding:- to be made public, that they should make reports to the House at the same time. When Hon. Members saw the evidence, as published by the House, they could scarcely believe that they were the same witnesses whose evidence had appeared in the newspapers.—(llear.) It was true the newspapers could not give verbatim reports. They ' could only give condensed and partial reports, containing as much information as they expected would be interest ing to the public. He (Mr. Villiers) had heard the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) state that he regretted he had not been able to attend the Andover Committee as he could have wished, as he would not have consented to the Committee being open when personal charges were being made against persons, unless it was understood that the evidence should be reported to the House or that the parties calum niated should be present ; he only mentioned this to show the animus which existed in the minds of those al b > constituted the Committee. He could not help wondering at the absence of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Christie) last night and that evening who had been so loud in his demands for the dismissal of the Poor-law Commis sioners. He (Mr. Villiers) did not think that he ex amined the witnesses who were called before the Com mittee in a becoming manner, and many Members of the House had spoken of the improper way in which he examined the witnesses, who were his seniors in years, if not in everything else. And yet the Hon. Gentleman took great honour to himself for his conduct as a member of the Committee. He did not scruple to inquire into the private affairs of witnesses and of the Assistant-Commission ers who had been formerly em ployed under the Poor-law Commissioners, and the room was constantly cleared in consequence of the impro priety of his conduct, and constant excitement was kept up during the investigation from the way in which the witnesses conducted themselves under his examination. When the witnesses were treated thus, was it any won der that they could scarcely trust what they stated. They were under the influence of fear, and everything was done to make them appear ridiculous. Thus, men who might have come forward and furnished valuable evidence, dreaded to do so, from the treatment which they would meet with at the hands of the Committee. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury asked last night, with great triumph, how it happened that the secretary to the Commission, who was denounced by the Committee as an unscrupulous servant, was not dis missed ; but if Mr. Chadwick had been dismissed, how much time would have elapsed before there would have been another inquiry, another Andover, another Somerset house inquiry into the reason of his dismissal. When he and other witnesses were treated as culprits, how could they expect that the Poor-law Commissioners would dis miss them. Was he not right in stating that there was a strong feeling in the Committee against the commis sioners. He (Mr. Villiers) stated distinctly that no blame attached to the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to the Andover union. Then a most extraordi nary resolution was passed by the Committee with re spect to the dismissal of Mr. Parker. The Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Shrewsbury succeeded in passing a resolution with respect to Mr. Parker. but they all knew that be was labouring under excitement during the whole session, and that he, in consequence, was not able to give that attention to the subject of the Andover inquiry which it merited. Mr DISRAELI said he was also a member of a rail way Committee. Mr. VILLIER3 knew that his time was fully occu pied ; that he was in muet excitement at the time the Committee sat—(Laughter) —his mind, no doubt, was occupied with other things.—(Laughter.) In a moment of excitement, however, he obtained the passing of a re solution, expr.ssive of the opinion of the Committee, that they had not acted acording to the Statute, and that they conducted their task in an arbitrary manner ; yet ,he (Mr. Villiers) repeated that no blame attached to the Commissioners f.:r what took place in the Andover union, for it appeared that Mr. Parker reported that the union was goine on favourably—(Hear, bear)—and they were bound to trust to their servant& He really wai ig norant of the fact until it was pr, tnulgated by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge ; and let the Hou4o recollect that a report t. this etf,ct was made by Mr. Parker to the Commissioners, at the very time ' the proceedings in the Andover union case were going on. He aas startled at tho statement—so much so that he went up to the library the same evening the state ment was made, and searched out that paNssge in the proceedings of the Committee. But be met with something more startling, and which he thought would equally astonish the Meuse. he found that that very fact was brought forward before 'he Committee in the shape of a resolution.—(Cheers.) They were called upon to 'furnish important informatioti to the House with respect to the conduct of the com missioners and assistant commissioners towards that union, and he found that one of the Committee proposed the insertion of a clause in the report to the effect that Mr. Parker had reported that the union was going on favourably—(Cheers)—but would the House believe that that fact was rejected by the Committee?—(Bear.) The fact wa reconsidered in'the proceedings of the Commit tee, which were to be found in the library, where every Hon. Member might see that that important fact was struck out by a majority of two. The Members for An dover and Shrewsbury who were men of honour, ought not to have lent themselves to concealing so important a fact as this, when it was their duty to have acted without prejudice either one way or other. The lion. Gentleman the Member for Andover (Mr. Etwall) stated that he proposed a resotution in the Committee, that Mr. Par- ker had conducted the inquiry with great par tiality, and that opinion was adopted by the Committee; but he (NIL Villiers) was at loss to know why it did not appear in their proceedings. He said that it was rather out of consideration to him that the commissioners advised him to resign; and if he intended to bring his case before the House, or before the public, he was ill advised that he did not insist on the commissioners recording their votes against him. But he sent in his resignation. There was another case. He did not allude to it further than to show that he (Mr. Vil liers) was cognizant of it, he referred to the otherassistant commissioner who was dismissed. He recollected that at an early part of last session the Right Hon. Member for Dorchester (Sir James Graham) referred to it in the House. lle understood the Right Hon. Baronet to s►y, that he had been dismissed on his recommendation. He might be mistaken—he might have misunderstood him, but he would say, that if the Home Secretary recom mended his dismissal, any blame attaching to it could not apply to the commissioners of the Poor-law. What he said, then, was, that in the report made by the An dover committee there was not a word aatinst the New Poor-taw Act itself, and all, upon conside ration of the evidence, must agree that no blame attached to the commissioners. Why, the Noble Chairman of that Committee, whom all had agreed to laud for his upright and honourable conduct during the sittings of that Committee, when he came to vote that to be truth which was not truth, and that to be tact which was not fact, refused, and would not vote for the resolutions. The Noble Lord might have said—these resolutions are not a guide to me ; I will judge the case upon its merits, and my conclusion shall be accord ing to my independent judgment. He thought he had now shown the necessity of having some of the Commis sioners Members of that House ; that the Central Com mission had fulfilled its place ; that the people were re conciled to the new poor-law, and the centralised admi nistration of it, and were convinced now that the central control which those possessed who superintended the working of the law, was precisely that which was desir able, and which they could not consent should be want• ing. When he said that he spoke from the experience and knowledge which he had gained from the evidence of different witnesses examined before a Committee on which he had been now for three months. In that Com .7 . ha mittee, where witnesses of every shade of o p inion been examined, not a single word had been heard, not d a single breath had been used againstall Commissioners.seemed All seemed to approve of the commission, a ed t osm favour it, and all seemed to agree that m uch mischief had been produced by the great out cr y which had been of it ; and that the first great raised against it on occasion o f t he House intermeddlin g with the proceedings amount of mischief was done when the number of com missioners was reduced from IS to 9 in the session of 1841. The measure, which was now before the House, proposed to give more power, and increased strength t o that centralised administration of the new Poor law which had existed now for thirteen years, with great benefit to the country. As f or t h e Commissioners themselves, he did not d en y t h at they had committed beenbee been i corrupt, iihuna a t n h e s t in th t e h y e has bees y e they a n d a d e b r e r e o n rs ca ; li b o u u t s :l t l h a a t t tl t i ad ministration of the law, or that they had done anything but such as the Howie might suppose liable to do, lie dia moat ,s _ , . ei,.iy Comillissioners p, Iti , ely deny. 1..1, would, when the time came, ' give the measure his cordial support. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the Member for Someractshire (Mr. Bayles) said that night, that if Hon. Members had restricted themselves to the subject which was actually before the House, the debate would, in one or two nights, have been certainly terminated ; but he (Lord John Manners) must say, if such had been the case, the debate would have ended, and the arguments for the Bill before the House would have been recorded nil ; for throughout the discussion for the several nights through which it had run, they had heard of the abuses of the poor law effecting the objects of itill it became disgusting, they had been led, throughout the proceedings of the Andover Committee, the charges upon the Commissioners, and the language of the b l i ti o t n t . h e M B e i m l l b i e t r ee i h f: r a I n i ti n a o r b es b t ° b r e () t il l e-h ill—ali tse m l r i t l e e i v l n e d ryt hi everythingheard scarcely a single sentence. The Hon. Member who had just resumed his seat, had devoted, in the course of his long speech, just two sentences to the measure that stood for a second reading ; but those two sentences, to which he would hereafter allude more fully, formed the greatest condemnation of the Bill which he could have uttered. Reference had been made to the poor-law, and as to that, h e did t hi n k i t d i d not afford that relief to the industrious classes which they were entitled to receive. He thought, that considering the facilities which were offered in the gaols for the instruction, and information, and i m p rovement of the inmates, and comparing those that were efforded, in the workhouses to the objects of charity, the state of the latter in that respect, as compar e d w ith the former, was a disgrace t . o a Christian country. H e did th i nk that the medial advice supplied to the poor was very insufficient, and placed cn a . footin g t h at was very in ferior. He spoke from experience, tor he had been one of those who had sat with Lord Ashl e y, and the strong and universally prevailing impression which was d eep in his own mind was that the provision for medical ad vice was very insufficient. He thought that the accusa tions against the administrators of the law were well. founded. He might quote from a report by the chaplain of Uxbridge gaol to show what he had been saying. That no doubt stated that the day set apart by her Majesty for humiliation was kept most strictly—th a t ninety-eight prisoners had petationd the governor be that k theept frompr portionincip th al emdurig n o t f he thLr y. meals , mightihet must be the discipline which bore such fruit as tam? Very much superior to that pursued in the workhouses. And, therefore, he recognised the propriety of the parallel drawn by the Honourable Member for North amptonshire, between the workhouse and the gaol. Well then, be w ou ld p ass f rom th e consideration of this general theme, and he would come to that which had oc cupied the attention of the House for the greater portion of the debate, namely, the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners. The Hon. Gen tleman rested his defence of this Bill upon the defence of the Poor-law Commissioners ; and he must congratulate them on having so able, so eloquent, and so determined an advocate ; but, like many too eager advocates, he proved rather too much, for if they had been so correct in every act of theirs—if they had violated no law, and if they acted np to the letter and spirit of the Act of Parliament, and if they had done full and ample justice, if, in short, they have been the " faultless monsters" which they have been represented to be, then the English people and the English House of Commons must be the most unjust, the most indiscriminate, and the most unfair legislative body, that the world ever saw,— (Cheers.) The only charge brought against the Com missioners, he said, was a violation of the statue; but soon after he devoted a considerable portion of time in order to prove that the treatment of Mr. Day and Mr. Parker was not either arbitrary or unjust, however, after what had fallen from the Honourable Member for Shrewsbury, it would require a vast amount of eloquence to prove that those gentlemen were not treated with a great deal of injustice. The Hon. Member was most indignant at the conduct of the An dover Committee; there was nothing which it did nol do; there was nothing which it said, or left unsaid, which he did not call to his aid, and upon which he did not comment. lie urged that they did not submit the resolution of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, on the evidence taken by the House of Commons. Whose fault was that? Which way did the Hon. Member him -1 self vote upon that occasion? Mr. VILLIERS—I never heard of it. Lord J. MANNERS--Well, the Hon. Gentleman comes down here and impugns the conduct of those gen tlemen who devoted their time to the inquiry, making the most violent charges against them. The Hon. Gentleman not, however, content with im peaching The conduct of the Andover Committee, objects that the evidence on which those resolutions were founded, was not worthy of credit, because, indeed, the witnesses were so worried by the Members for Shrews. bury and Finsbury, that they did not know either what they were saying or what they were doing.—(Laughter.) Let them just imagine a gentleman like Mr. Lewis so incapable of answering the questions put to him, that he said things which he did not intend to say.—(Laughter.) And then, if that Mr. Chadwick was the Sinon which he was represented to be in an anonymous pamphlet written in defence of the commissioners, ever since he has been in office, he must be retained in office, not because they had the slightest confidence in him, but because be would institute an inquiry which they considered and kne.,e they could not stand.--(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentlen - ,an also said that the commissioners were suffering unde served odium, and that the iniquities of the guardians of the Andover Union were placed upon. their shoulders; but was there ever a more unfounded statement. He defied him to bring forward any resolution which would bear such a construction. The president of the commission was to be superior to the president of the hoard of Council—to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others. Could any one in his senses doubt that the Lord President would sanction whatever might be proposed by these high authorities, in spite of all that might be said to the contrary. That was the reason which principally induced him to vote against this Bill. He did not see that the condition of the poor would be at all amended by this measure, and, therefore, he opposed it.--(Cries of " Divide.") Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was not at all sur prised at the impatience of the House upon this subject. Ile had almost ventured to hope that he never ehovld again have found it necessary to trespass upon the in. dutgence of the House upon a Poor-law Bill ; but, con sidering the part it was his duty to take in the framing of this poor-law, and considering also the obloquy which be incurred in his eudeavonrs to please, and considering also the official bias which he was supposed to have hither to upon his mind in these discussions upon former occa-ions, and considering the independent station which he now occupied, he was glad to be able, calmly, dispas sionately, and deliberately, to review the policy of this measure, arid he trusted that he should be pardoned if h e ventured to address them shortly upon the subject under discussion. Though he did not see the Hon. Member for Finsbury in his place, he had great pleasure in agrce. ing with him iu a sentiment which he uttered—viz., that it was the duty of property in this country to maint a i n the poor—(hear)—and inasmuch as the poor were not represented in that House, it certainly was one of the most important, and -certainly one of the most bounden duties of the representatives of the people to take care that their interests were properly attended to. It was upon these grounds that he distinctly avowed himself unchanged in his Opinion that the Poor-law Amendment Act was sound in principle, and in the main, conducive to the interests of the industrious poor, as contra-distinguished to the idle poor. Before they consented to a great change in that measure, and they were that night debating what was a change, it was of importance to consider what was avowedly the principal object of the Act of 1834, and therefore, he would shortly allude to it. It had been said in the course of that debate that the measure had signally failed. He joined issue upon that statement, and he denied that the measure had failed, and he asserted that the objects contemplated by the framers of this Act had been accom plished. First of all it was the deliberately considered intention of those who proposed this Bill, that an union administration of relief should be substi tuted for a parochial system, and that system throughout England and Wales, with hardly an exception, ulight now be stated to be established. What was the second? Whereas it was something estranged. from the Act of Elizabeth. It was intended to compel able-bodied per sons who could not find work for themselves, or wero unwilling to work, to labour at the cost of the parish authorities under arrangements made by those autho rities he i ple T t h h e a t o b il e :a t c o i f t e h n e i e A n c t t h o e f re l s .S ll 3 o 4 e a ld •as b t e o ed a workhouse, where work and food should be provided for the able-bodied, as the test of destitution, in each union of England ; that test was considered to he a good one and it was now universally applied. What Was the next ? It was, that the parochial officers should perform their duties in a proper manner, and that the paid officers should be strictly controlled and watched. These paid officers now throughout England edadaister t d relief. Again, with respect to medical attendance to the poor, whatever might be said witlT rt gard to the imperfections in the system of medical relict, he would compare that medical relief with the relief given in 1834. —(Hear, hear.) Contrast that with their recollection of the medical relief as it was given before the Act with what it had been since the Act of 1834 up to the present time. Many abuses had crept in, but those were owing to the thriftiness of the board of guardians, and thet Commissioners,ute h salaries of the medical officers were increased by authority. There VMS an4ip hera was formerly a singl e ty. sh owing the n r imperfection ecessity of with a to the parish accounts. h ori magistrates, an d a d the grossest frauds crept in. The auditin g day appointed the t au a cl a i s t of tmerely heir accounts by of form, an s y s tem was now placed under responsible parochial officers. Provision had been made for the education of children in the workhouse, where no such provision before existed. The education of the children, as given in the workhouses, was now better than that given in ordinary schools, and better masters and naistreeses were taken from the normal schools. The old system was vicious to the very n por ta fr n e c e e d that the that t. re t c h it e r e e people pe an r d a o n i t f . t w h a i s s country e should i m be The Hon. Memb er f or Finsbury has saidthe - s n p en a t r p is r h op v o e s b i t t r i oyn ora b will degradeoard o th f e g H na o r u d s i s : l ns to . the level theyvei o p f would be occupied day by day with questions relating to the quality of soup, or the quantity of gruel given to the pour ; whether it shall be made of one article in preference to another ; whether it contains too mUchmilk or too much water—all the tales and matters of this kind. The bills, too, will be brought under the notice of the House, if the present measure be agreed to. If the question—whether t w h a i s s w b , e a. t s o t r h e e t p h r e o m p r ac he w e o t u o l d consider e ad e d a i s sc ni u n s se much subjects one the introduction of such topics, to the exclusion of other important business. But these topics had been in• troduced into the House relating to OW administration of t h e l aw , they had Leen from tune to time forced on the attention of the Government, and great difficulty had b een e xperienced in theaii for sceoftho ti s l e e e ßho arry aie u r g e out of di rectlyimmediately responsible Vtl* more in eonven i eut t h an t h at the the e laanw* d Secretary of State, who was not directly concerned in the administration of the law, should be called to make explanations on matters in which their information was indirectly obtained. They had had an illustration that very night, in the question asked by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough in respect to the dismissal of Mr. Mott. The Right lion. Gentlemen, the Secretary for I the florae Departmeat used the expressien " dismissed," Now, in A technical sense, that lila not go, Mr. Mott, Lry let lue ioa 7 1b 10 0 10 0 106 ) 1 ) 5 1 0 th 30 i 3ibi been ,olti o wed one 1 1 2 2 6 3 3 d r 4 do 5 ,It v ied, ; t ier L abs.) w . o. dr dr : ion ; )}o r Le il l the over r or .r) Jack a as olio 7th the >3