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

"salt Lori so full of confidence, boa he (Mr. Wakley) had wag a remarked that the Nob le Lord was never so bold as w'Len he was wrong.—(la mghter.) He always ob sere ed that he adhered with. extraordinary pertinacity to Ids 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 nigba because be answered himself by anticipation. — (gear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) heard the Noble Lord of 1004, speaking against flee 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 e. Poor-law Commissioner, and in 1834 he (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 influencedby some sinister advice) make such a proposition. A proposition more unfortu nate was never submitted to the Hbuse ; it was one of the most unconstitutional which could be well conceived. What was it ? To give to a commissioner a legislative and executive ower awl functions.—(Hear, hear . ) What could be more clangorous ? how would it work ? Why, every board of guar diens in the kingdom would be political agents, and insr ruments set to work by design ing people, to accomsAish some sinister object. What then was to becomeo , ' the poor ? No thin g more unhappy could be conceived 'oy any monster politician. He was sure that it dig, 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 die the Noble Lord expect would be the effect of this mea sure ? Were the Ministry jealous of the reputation of tb a Poor-law Commissioners 2—(Laughter.) Surely it WP,I3 impossible that they could be envious of their (peculiar popularity.—(Continued latighter.) Did the Tight Hon. the Secretary for the Homo 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.—(Laughter in which Lord John Russell and Sir George Grey 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.— (ree.ughter.) What were the questions that would be most commonly asked, and which the Poor-law Com Thessioners would have to determine ? He (Mr. Wakley) did noc think the subject had engaged the attention of the Government. Ho 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 comiseionerers 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 eins 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 kis colleagues, the new commis sioners? If he did, the country would not be satisfied, and the House would probable see the spectacle of e dissolution in July, a meeting in October, 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, tor, in a matter of fact, one example was as good as a hundred, from a return laid upon the ta'ule of the House. In January, 1846, 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 to inform 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 cunces of bread, and on Thurs days, for children, meat-pudding in lieu of bread and cheese. The Board of Guardians request that you will sanction this arrangement.—l have, Sec." 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, " lam directed by the Pooreaw Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 17th instant, respecting the pro posed 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 Tavistocls 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 this request were themselves the rate-payers, and would, therefore, be obliged to be it 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.) Ile 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 dietary 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 501. 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 had 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 Cf 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 Lb orally given, he was delighted to hear this, but he would like to know what they would do with such guardians as those of the pour-law union. When they began to administer the law they would find the difficulties insurmountable.—(Hear, 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 admitted only of 5 oe of meat to an able-bodied man, and three ounces to an 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 even 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 here 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 clay 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.—(llear, hear.) Was the Noble Lord aware of these facts ? And if so, it was impossible tbat he could be contented with this state of thin g s. If he has his Poor law Commis siotiers seated in h t at House, these questions must be foroed on th e i r att w e and their explanations would il be required. ( Mr. Wakley) as ked, was it for the safety of the countrs th at l" such subjects should be continually mooted ther'e of an evil would be found. It we ould knew where the balance be o in the board of guardians, and they would rul e t h e being weak, would g o t o t h e wall, l vernment. The poor, and that b e i ng the case, what would be the feelings of the poor of e this country. It was his opinion that such a feeling in dignation wontd arise amon g st-the m , as to endanger o the institutions of t he countr y .—(Hear.) He was con _ vin.eel, too, that a more unconstitutional measure I could not be brought forward. Was this eye . tern of centralizetion to go on increasing, at every step they took, the pewer and influence of the Government. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government roust be aware 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, echool-masters, matrons, and others, was jauneoset and did the Noble Lerd think the country was ignor4nt of all this? Ile was astonished that the Noble Lord, who was an advocate for a free constitution, who had always expressed himself jealous of increasing the povverz of the Crown, should bring forward such a Ilea' sure as this. The Noble Lord might be convinced that the ezi_s!4pritlitikent would not abuse the powers it wpatNethe was the Noble Lord prepared to trylgtlb t overnment? The Noble Lord 911 44 p s -forseard 'eel to guard against future Go r u beett.si:li)ss=hhioV_ttLittri n p tr o y w . er T to he in N cr o e b a l s e e t L h o e r ir d, n iin itiit'Aet:leieit, letely failed to show the cc • *if: The Nob a Lord was a s PRE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1847. Cine for a central board. Well, they had tried such a control with regard to the poor-law for the last thirteen years, and it had failed ; but still, if they were to establish a central control for the protection of the rich rate-payer, why should not the poor have a judge to see that his rulers and superiors did him justice. He did not believe there would be any difficulty in establishing such a law. He was not afraid of the boards of guardians, but if the Noble Lord feared them, why . did he not reconstruct them ? The Noble Lord last night spoke of the Act of Elizabeth, and pointed out to them the 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 rewarding them for their misconduct instead of visiting them with condemnation. But really and truly the constitutions of these boards of guardians ought to be reformed. Their election at this moment was a perfect farce. Instead, however, of reforming the system, 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 he continued, and no honest, indus trious man in time of reed could procure relief eithout walking several miles for it. The present law in all respects was inconsistent with the principle of the Act of Elizabeth, and especially inconsistent with regard to the able-bodied poor. Upon this branch of the subject they had heard much from the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, but the lion. and Learned Gentleman 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 parish authori ties, but under the new poor- law he had to 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- I rity to the property of the country , and it p rovided — 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 had no . property of their own. That principle was acknowledged by the statute of Queen Elizabeth, but by the Act of 1834, it was almost abrogated. Ho firmly believed that the conduct the Government nas 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 quences to the Government. But what was a far 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 could 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 be (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 cordingly 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. Fernand), 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 Biil.—(Loud Cheers.) Mr. VILLIERS felt bound to say that iu the course of the four speeches which had been made, nothing bad been proposed, nor anything agreed upon. The Hon. speakers seemed to differ in every point, except one, that was discontent with the commissioners. The Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. P. Borthwick) thought that the old local system was perfection itself, and he ,had the utmost confidence in the conduct of the working-classes. 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 increasing their power. The Hon. Member also condemned in the strongest language the conduct of the commissioners. The Hon. Member for Sotnersetshire was a very inte resting character in this debate. That Hon. Gentleman came forward and stated that the power and authority of the central power should be confirmed and strengthened. The Hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. 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 local boards had acted with great discretion. 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 lion. 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 ment 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 ti one 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 rood to fame by any person wishing to obtain for him selfnow fu ll y a little assuredpopu Ia rit that y. the T `Th e measure people o wasth iosnceo whichuntry' were had produced great an d beneficial results to themselves and the more con e. ' statements mad© the country at lar ge. The more the subject was consi dereda Teed every one would be that the founded. The cenfralestt)otahredcentral authority were un to correct, and Lord Althor had a great many abuses defined what these duties sere at the time the comitis w si a o s n t ers were appointed. t !bolish the system The first thing they had to do I -door other gistrates of of ,h e allowances; pews: o f thegiving next ou t duties of a different and arduous nature. had been admitted that the greatest success Ledn'aitt tended their labours, what ground was there for the accusations made against them. One party thought hat the work house system could be carried out over t h e country. Anothe r p art y said that no one 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. Es t 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 had 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 he 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 he denied that these charges were ever proved before the House, and the Law Officers of the Crown had fully acquitted them of the imputations. The case of the Andover workhouse had been frequently re ferred to in the debate, and all the abuses exposed in that workhouse had been generally attributed to the commissioners • but he maintained that nothing was more unjust. With respect to all those disgraceful proceedings, there was not one tittle of evidence to 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 justice of the case demanded. What did that Committee, that Select Committee do, when they commenced their labours? They threw open their doors to the public. And gave permission to the public 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 that, 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. This 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. WARLEY said the evidence was reported to the House and printed. Mr. VILLIERS was bound to believe the Hon. 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 nature 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 had 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. In a Select Committee 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 usual when Committees allowed their proceedings 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.—(hear.) It was true the newspapers could not give verbatim reports. They could only eive condensed and partial reports, coettining 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 (Nile 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 who 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 dismissa 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-Commissioners 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 he 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. VILLIERS' knew that his time was fully occu pied ; that he was in much 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, expressive of the opinion of the Committee, that they had not acted acording to the Statute, and that they ( j o t m r . ra V i i s l a l i i o e n r s e ) r s r e f p :.7 ea t w e d h a t t h a t t o o n k o p b l l a ti e m e e conducted their task in an arbitrary m a nner ; yet ,he in att t ac he hed An t d o o t v h e e r union, for it appeared that Mr. Parker reported that the union was going on favourably—(Hear, hear)—and they were bound to trust to their servants. He really was ignorant of the fact until it was pr...mulgated by the lion. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge ; " and let the House recollect that a report to this effect was made by Mr. Parker to the Commissioners, at the very time the proceedings in the Andover union case were going on. He was startled at the statement—so much so that he went up to the library the same evening the state ment was made, and searched out that passage in the proceedings of the Committee. But he met with something more startling, and which he thought would equally astonish the House. he found that that very fact was brought forward before the Committee in the shape of a resolution.—(Cheers.) They were called upon to furnish important information to the House with respect to the conduct of the com missioners and assistant commissioners towards that union, anti 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?—(Hear.) The fact was 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 Hon. Gentleman the Member for Andover (Mr. Etwall) stated that he proposed a reso!ution 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 (Mr. 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 other assistant 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. He understood the Right Hon. Baronet to say, 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 tbere was not a word against the New Poor-law 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 fact which w as not f act , re f use d, an d would not vote for t he resolutions. Th e N o bl e L or d m ight have said — these resolution s are Lot a guide to me ; I will judge the case upon it s mer i ts, an d my co n c lusion shall be accord ing t o m y ind lendent judgment. lie thought he had now shown th e necessity of havieg some of the Commis sioners Memb ers o f that House ; that the Central Cora mission had fulfill e d i ts 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 mittee, where witnesses of every shade of opinion had been examined, not a single word had been heard, not a single breath had been used against the Commissioners. All seemed to approve of the commission, all seemed to favour it, and all seemed to agree that much mischief had been produced by the great outcry which had been raised against it on occasion of the House intermeddling with the proceedings of it ; and that the first great amount of mischief was done when the numbar of com missioners was reduced from 18 to 9 in the session of 1841. The measure, which was now before the House, proposed to give more power, and increased strength to that centralised administration of the new Poor law which had existed now for thirteen years, with great benefit to the country. As for the Commissioners themselves, he did not deny that they had committed errors ; but that they had been corrupt, that they had been callous, that they had been inhumane in the ad ministration of the law, or that they had done anything but such as the House might suppose any Commissioners liable to do, he did most positively deny. He would, when the time came, give the measure his cordial support. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the Member for Somereetshire (Mr. Bankes) 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 Rouse 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 affecting the objects of charity, till it became disgusting, they had been led, throughout the proceedings of the Andover Committee, the charges up fn the Commissioners, and the language of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—almost everything but the Bill itself, and on the Bill itself, he had heard scarcely a single sentence. The lion. 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, he did think it did 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 improvement of the inmates, and comparing those that were afforded, in the workhouses to the objects of charity, the state of the latter in that respect, as compared with the former, was a disgrace to a Christian country. He did think that the medical advice supplied to the poor was very insufficient, and placed on a footing that was very in ferior. He spoke from experience, for he had been one of those who had sat with Lord Ashley, and the strong and universally prevailing impression which was deep 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—that ninety-eight prisoners bad petitioned the governor that the principal portion of their meals might be kept from them during the day. Now, what must be the di-cipline which bore such fruit as that? 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, he would pass from the 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 lion. 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 up 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 lion. 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. He 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 self vote upon that occasion? Mr. VILLIERS —I never heard of it. Lord J. MANNERS—WeII, 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 peacbing 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 be 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 he would institute an inquiry which they considered and knew they could not stand.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman 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 board 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. He had almost ventured to hope that he never should again have found it necessary to trespass upon the in dulgence 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 he incurred in his endeavours to please, and considering also the official bias which he was supposed to have hitherto upon his mind in these discussions upon former ()mations, 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, and he trusted that he should be pardoned if he 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 agree ing with him in a sentiment which he uttered—viz., that it was the duty of property in this country to maintain 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 meas ure, and the y 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 be 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 au union administration of relief should be substi tisted for a parochial system, and that system thro u g hout England an d W ales, with hardly an exception, might 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 were unwilling to work, to labour at the cost of the parish authorities under arrangements made by those autho prirtiinecsipleTthbeatobibjeceat c o b f t u h n e io A n c t t b o e f re l s B b 3 o 4 u w id as b t e o e a s s t s a e b r l t isb t e h d e 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 be 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 prcper manner, and that the paid officers should be strictly controlled and watched These paid officers now throughout England administered relief. Again, with respect to medical attendance to t—ewt titsit oim h o mh e nepaeht pthi. p raeie o f :reo medical, whatever relief as might be be said with regard to the merh e t : aht i andh o rnei h aybfat s teri amn.e)ibnenetsidS Contrastiti on h sc e le s r y teh ls relief oeAfmt with at o i tt f obsf m , blt e hBe d 3 i Itc4healelutieprrfergtl recollection given nle h e ieepntrwi present time. given before the Act with thriftiness had cre b p o t ar in d , obfuttho:e guardians,we realoidwithhe sal ries 43! the medical officers Were me:rens:4 by the Commissioners, shoving the neces*ity of a central authority. There was anotlPAr imperfection with regard to the parish accounts. There was formerly a single day appointed in each year for the audit of their accounts by the magistrates, and that audit was merely a matter of form, and the grossest frauds crept in. The auditing system 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 mistresses were taken from the normal schools. The old system was vicious to the very core, and it was of the last importance that the people of this country should be freed from its operation. The Hen. Member for Finsbury has said that the pre sent proposition will degrade the House to the level of a parish vestry or a board of guardians. That they would be occupied day by day with questions relating to the quality of soup, or the quantity of gruel given to the poor ; 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 this was the proper place to consider and discuss subjects was before them, he would deprecate as much as any one the introduction of such topics, to the exclusion of other important business. But these topics had been in trod uced into the House relating to the administration of the law, they had been from time to time forced en the attention of the Government, and great difficulty had been experienced in the absence of those who were di rectly and immediately responsible for the carrying out of the law. Nothing was more inconvenient than that the 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 Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Horne Department used the expression " dismissed." Now, in a technical sense, that was not so. Mr. Mott had not been dismissed. As he stated before, a reduction was proposed in the number of the Poor-law Commissioners. It was proposed to reduce the number from ten to nine, and Mr. Mott was selected as the party who was to retire. He retired therefore from the Commission, and was not dis- missed.—(liear, hear.) He said, therefore, that it was not right that the Secretary of state should be called on to give explanations at second-hand, and in an unsatis factory manner. It was of no use concealing the real state of the question. He maintained decidedly, from his past experience, considering the large powers which were given to the Poor-law Commissioners, it was im portant that they should be directly responsible for their own acts, that the public and that House should be able to place their fingers on those who might do any wrong in the administration of the law.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord at the head of the Government has said that it was a question formerly in the Cabinet of Earl Grey, whether the responsibility should not be made direct. Lord Althorp, a high authority on this question, was strongly disposed to take the course now proposed, and of which he (Sir J. Graham) entirely approved. Lord Althorp consented to suspend his judgment in the matter at the time, and it was aareed to make the responsibility indirect instead of direct. Now, from his (Sir James Graham's) judgment of the working of the poor-law for the last ten years, and he was strongly convinced that the responsibility should be direct, and not indirect as berore. Though it might do much to incommode the Government, still the step, in his opi nion, was one of great importance and value.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir James Graham) further wished to ob serve, that the opinion of the Hon. Member for Fins bury appeared to be a different opinion now to what it formerly was. If his (Sir James Graham's) me mory served him right, he was convinced that the Hon. Gentleman's opinion hitherto on the subject till that night, was, that the boards of guardians, or local au thorities, were always seeking to cut down the supplies to the poor, and that the central authority had been re peatedly exercised in a salutary way to prevent this taking place.—(Hear, hear.) This brought him to the main question before the House, which was, first, was the central authority necessary ; and if so, had that authority been improperly exercised ? If it bad been improperly exercised then the next question was, (lid the present measure supply the commission? With the regard to the first point, he thought it had been generally admitted, that central power was required. It had been admitted by the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, in the course of the present debate, and several other Hon. Members. But the Hon. Member for Finsbury says that the present system of control has operated injuriously. That by the existing system of relief the poor have been confined in gaols, as he terms them, instead of being visited at their own homes. Now what was the Government's after course? So far from the poor being generally relieved in the workhouses, as he alleges, for the last three years but fifteen per cent. of the poor of England and Wales have been so relieved ; while eighty-five per cent. have been relieved at their own dwellings. In England and Wales last year but 185,000 were re lieved in the workhouse, while upwards of a million were relieved without.—(Cheers.) Talk of the hard ships of the poor after this, why a more unfounded charge was never brought against any party by any body of Englishmen. In the whole civilised world no country made such a noble effort as the people of Eng land to maintain the destitute by charity out of the public funds. In proportion to the population of 1834, the sum of eight millions was raised for the relief of the poor, but now the poor were relieved in a superior manner by five millions of money. And he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact that during last year, though there was not that distress which un fortunately now prevailed, two millions of their fellow countrymen received relief out of the parochial rates. One-eighth of the whole population of England and Wales were thus relieved, and as he said before of these, no less than eighty-five per cent. of them were relieved out of the workhouse. It would be in vain for them in the history of the whole civilised world to match such an effort of humanity, so effective and unsparingly directed, and without, at the same time, degrading the characters of those who received the relief.—(Cheers.) Now it had been said, by the Hon. Member for Warwick, that the workhouse test had proved unsuccessful; and it was said by others, that they had too many assistant commissioners. In 1844, a wish was expressed to reduce the number, and he (Sir James Graham) thought that a reduction would take place. At another time it was stated, that the number was too low; and they were asked to increase them. At one time the rules and regulations of the commissioners were too stringent; at another time they were too relaxed—objections being continually made. But as he said before, the central control was very in effective, and it was on that account that he supported the proposed change. He put it to any Member now sitting on the Committee on the Law of Settlement, as to the great importance of the question, and the difficulty of dealing with this branch of the poor-laws.—( Hear.) They had had brought before them the most intelligent witnesses from all parts of England, men recommended as the most likely to throw light on this difficult subject. Whatever might be the difficulty felt by the Committee in coming to an unanimous agreement upon every point— % difficulty so graphically painted by the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard—he was satisfied that he xpressed the opinion of the Committee on this point, and that of all the witnesses brought before the Committee, the four most competent and able and in telligent witnesses were poor-law assistants, whose names he felt bound to mention. They were Mr. Tuffnell, Mr. Gulston, Mr. Bigot, and Mr. Hall. Now, with respect to the commissioners them selves, he might be permitted to say very shortly what were the facts which had taken place with respect to the commissioners when he succeeded to office in 1841. He found that at that time one single commis sioner exercised the power delegated by the Act through. out the whole of England and Wales. He was forced to confess that when Sir Frankland Lewis resigned office he was exceedingly sorry, because he did not think that his son could be qualified to succeed him. He would not in the presence of the Speaker say how much he felt when Mr. Lefevre resigned office, because, from his ad miration of that gentleman's high conduct and character, he might, perhaps, be thought to exaggerate the pain which that resignation had given. He did not know Sir Frankland Lewis's son ; and he, therefore, thought that the more prudent course would be not personally to court his acquaintance, but to watch his conduct in his high office, communicate with him officially, and form his opi nion by observing his performance of those duties ere ne admitted him to familiar acquaintanceship. So mat ters went on for some three months. His pre dispositions were not favourable to Mr. Lewis, but it would be the height of injustice to that gentleman did he not say, that in all his acquaintanceship he had never seen or met a public man, so , eminent for punc tuality and a happy power of overcoming by prompti tude the greatest difficulties. The able manner in which he sustainel his previous character, by promptly meet ing the difficulties of the year 1842, decided his (Sir J. Graham's) opinion. He was rejoiced to find that the good opinion he had begun to entertain was well founded, and from that period he formed an acquaintance with Mr. Lewis, which he had no reason to regret. With that gentleman he acted for five years, and the great efforts he made, and the prudence and decision he evinced un der the most trying circumstances—efforts continued from day to day—confirmed more and more the good opinion he entertained of Mr. Lewis's qualities ; and now, in every place, and under any circumstances, lie was prepared, from his knowledge of that gentleman's ;rest ability, and of his eminent straightforwardness , to defend that gentleman against any charge which might be brought against him.—(Hear, hear.) It was unworthy of a great assembly like that to dwell on small faults, where the person scruti nised had other qualities of far higher moment. Surely it was far better that Mr. Lewis should be distinguished by promptitude than by lassitude ; and he was ready to take a portion of the blame upon himself in those matters which had called forth the most determined expressions of public disapprobation, for he was assured that nothing had been issued by Mr. Lewis or the other commissioners which had not received his previous inspection. When Lord Melbourne left office, there was a vacancy in the Poor-law Commission, and, upon .the accession of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, he (Sir J. Graham) filled up that vacancy by the v pointrnent of Sir E. Head, who , fr om conduct, without regard to his poli tical then for he was opposed ia polit i c s feelings,re(3aPu (.2 t Go vernment, bad recommended himself bto ethbefatvcoouardebuclet notice of the Government, and his worth y of had proved that he was in every By the appoint ay wo;thy the con fidence at first bestowed upon ki ment of that gentleman to the o,ffibraetri.o; P b o e o li r e - v la ec w i C t c h m a - t _nissioner, he (Sir James .oi,sideratile dissetisfacti n had ' been given to sThad icic, who, from that. !Iloaieilta hadnot worked cordially with the Commissioners. With respect to this Bill, it had been objected that it would increase the number of placeinen in the House. Now, it so hap- pened that the number of placemen had been consider ably diminished during the last few years. Reductions had been made in the number of placemen in the Boards of Admiralty, Ordnance, and the Navy, while the only addition that had been made was that of his Hon. Friend the President of the Railway Board. It bad also been objected to this Bill that great power was given to the Poor-law Commissioners in the delegation of their au thority, but he did not see how that could be dispensed with. One of two things must be done, either that the House must enact soma• law for the general regulation of all the unions throughout the country, or else that the Commissioners should have a power vested in them to frame such regulations as might be re quired to meet the circumstances of each union. Of the two courses he was decidedly in favour of the last. Now, was it possible to escape from the necessity of choosing the latter? No, it was not ; because the operations of these general rules must always vary with the fluctuations in the mantvacturing industry of the country. When trade varied and slackened the appli cation of the prohibitory order of out-door relief in 100 out of 600 of the unions of this country must be suspended, while from time to time, as circumstances ren dered it necessary, it must be stringently applied again. Just consider, at this moment the coun try was suffering under an infliction which rfndered certain articles of food comparatively dear, and it had been deemed necessary, with reference to particular counties, to alter the dietary in different unions, and, therefore, the circumstances being so liable to change, it was impossible to take away the power of making general rules. It appeared to him that it had been ad mitted, that at the present moment Government parti cipated, to a certain extent, in the administration of the poor-laws, but it had been connected with the admiuis tration of the law, without the power of command. It had been responsible—indirectly responsible—for the administration of the law without the supreme authority of regulation or control ; and he was satisfied that the time had arrived when that imperfection must be re moved. The mode to accomplish that end, it seemed to him, after much reflection upon the subject, was to adopt the plan proposed by the Govern ment. Upon the whole, considering the analogy the plan bears to the Board of Control and the Board , f Trade, he was of opinion that the Bill brought forward by the Government was an efficient proposal, and the beet calculated to meet the necessities of the cases. Without, therefore, at that late hour, wearying the House with minute inquiries, or what would be the functions of the representatives of the new Board in that House, he would content himself with simply stating that he approved of the general principle of the Bill, and he should without hesitation give it his most cordial support.—(Cheers.) The House then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading Against it Majority for the second reading —176 The Bill was then read a second time. COPYHOLD COMMISSION BILL. The House then went into Committee on the Copy hold Commission Bill, and the several clauses were agreed to. TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL. This Bill also went through Committee, and was or dered to be reported. LOAN SOCIETIES BILL. The clauses of this Bill were also agreed to in Com mittee, and the report ordered to be receive& RAILWAYS IRELAND (No 2) BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER post poned till the 11th of June the second reading of this Bill. FISHERIES PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of the Cif NCE LLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the second reading of this Bill was post poned till the 7th of June. SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION SUPPRES SION BILL.—ADJOURNED I)EI3ATE. On the order of the day for resuming the debate of this Bill, Colonel SIBTHORP hoped the lion. Member for Birmingham would postpone, till a future period, the further consideration of this Bill. Be would suggest that he should postpone it for two months.—(Laughter.) Mr. SPOONER. hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a first time to-might, and he would propo3e that it should be read a second time on Wednesday, the 2d June, when the subject might be fully discussed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL suggested to the Hon. Gen tleman the propriety of postponing the first reading till Wednesday, the 2d June. After a short conversation, in which Sir George Grey took part, The gallery was then cleared for a division, but no division took place, and the Bill was read a first time, and ordered to . be read a second time on the 9th of June. LANDED PROPERTY LAND) BI IMPROVEMENTS (IRE. LL. On the the order of the day being read for going into Committee on' this Bill, Mr. S. CRA.WFORD said, as the Government in tended to introduce a Bill on this subject, he begged to withdraw the above-mentioned Bill. The Bill was withdrawn accordingly. POOR RE ,lOVAL AMENDMENT BILL. On the order of the day being read for the 21 read ing of this Bill, Mr. BANKES said be wished to postpone the second reading until a day when a discussion c. , uld be taken on the Bill, and trusted the Government would afford him an opportunity of doing so that day fortnight. Mr. HUDSON said the greatest anxiety prevailed in the country, with respect to the measure ; it was a great blot upon their legislation, and he trusted that no delay would take place in passing it into a law, in or ier that the detects of the present law might be amended. Sir G. GREY said the Hon. Gentleman had fixed the second reading for a Government night, when the Bill would not stand so much chance of receiving discussion as on another day. Mr. RICHARD YORKE suggested to the Hon. Gentleman the 3d of June. Mr. BANKES fixed on Wednesday, the 9th of June, which was accordingly appointed, for the second reading of the Bill. PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT. On the bringing up of' the Report, Lord G. BENTINCK rose to move the amendment which he had intended to move last night. lle said he wished to give passengers the same security which was afforded under the regulations at Lloyd's to dry and perishable goods. By the rules of Lloyd's, no goods were entitled to be moved which were not carried in second-class vessels. They did not permit their sol diers to be carried in inferior vessels, nor did they allow their convicts to be carried out in vessels which were not sea worthy. Now it was unjust that the Irish emigrant should not be similarly protected. The Hon. Member the Secretary for the Colonies, considered that his measure which cast the responsibility upon the emigration agents, would secure the object, which he (Lord G. Bentinck) desired to obtain—namely, the perfect sea-worthiness of vessels carrying passengers. No inspection of the vessels going out was required, and unless some one raised a doubt, there was no security at all, as tar as British ships all was right enough; for Lloyd's register could tell them whether they were sea-worthy or not—but they had no security for Amerionn vessels, which wet. , built of the frailest materials, for they were al! constructed of tir, which would become perfect]) rotten in three or four years. (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then read a notice to shipowners from Lloyd's, respecting the carriag e of pvssengers, and seid ho asked for Irish emigrants by foreign ships what the House afforded them by English ships, and he thought the House would not deny him this request. It could not be expected surely, that ships which could not be trusted with dry and perishable goods or convicts should continue to carry emigrants, and yet three fiurths were carried by such ships. He begged to move the insertion of the clause. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite agreed with the object sought to be obtained by the Noble Lord, but thought the subject had better be post poned till the third reading. Time should be given, at least, for the consideration of the matter. His present impression was, that the clause had better now stand as it did. Mr. V. SMITH supported the Bill as it stood. Mr. THORNELY could not consent to the clause, and considered the clause in the Bill, as it stood, would secure all that was required. Mr. LIDDELL supported the amendment. • Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the Noble Lord would not divide the House on the subject, but leave the matter in the hands of the Government. in G Lord INGESTRE suggested that' Government Lord Should take care of the educ ation of those emigrantwr ck s. ships, in order to decrease. the chances of ship -1 i ne ffectual attempt s ton having made several Several Members rising to speak, and I,,lrt.oßsrhoothrteern the debate, shoTuhlde be Ho x. Lord G. BENTINCK con.sidered this a mode adopted n at last moved that the debate h•s ma•orit as h adjourned. of the Exchequer bad promised that ever, the Chancellor for the purpese of getting rid of 1 J y, ,ho w• should be carried out in the Bill, i w his motion . h e should wthdra th e nand the report Th e clauses were withdrawn, the spirit of his clauses agreed to. RAILWAYS. Mr..STRIITT obtaied kayo to bring in a Bill for regulating the proceedings of the Comnait3sioners of Railway's, and for amending the law relating to rai' way . s. POLICE (SCOTLAND.) - The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend an Act to enable burghs in Scotland to establish a general system of police, and another Act for providing for the appointment and election of ma. gistrates and councillors fur certain burghs and towns of Scotland. The Bills were subsequently brought in and read a first tioat-. The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and The House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock. POISONING GAME.—A great quantity of game, principally pheasants, has been destroyed in the preserves of Lord Middleton, near this town, through the means 'ot poisoned grain, which had been strewn about the neigh bourhood of the plantations. Nearly a hundred dead birds have been picked up; and it is expected that more remain to be discovered in the woods.—Nottincham Review. FOOD RIOTS IN JERSEY.—The Jersey Correspondent of Thursday has the following:—Thursday morning, half past five o'clock. Up to tan o'clock last nigi t, many per were loitering but no arificaranci• of 'kii6affe.ctiou v,as thanitehted. "'Jut the Royal-square and the stree ts During the night all ha;; reinailicd quiet. The extra guards, however, have remained at their various posts, and will d o to till further orders. The authorities have refused to ba i l the persons in custody charged with rioting. •tilt .........m. - FIRE AT SEA, AN]) I%OSS OF ELEVEN LIVES. (From the Inverness Courier of 1 (ttesdaY.) a party of Last night, between nine and ten o' cl, e t o wn by the three seamen and one woman came into t h te r were in It Beauly Road, from Wick. Two of the fo ra ' e ly burned deplorable state—their arms being very sever otherwise —and the other having an arm broke n and lok, injured. On being taken, temporarily, to the house they gave the following story :—They were' ar t o f the crew of the barque Swan of Baltimore (a ve 131.: nd 400 or 500 tuns burden), Captain Williamson, k ;,h e Jrom Valparaiso to Leith with tallow and hides. ",,, station injured. crew, including the o ffi cers and stewardess, were fide' , " in number, and there were three single cabin passenge. Tao V: ' Fourteen or fifteen days ago, when o ff the Wester Islands, the steward went down to the spirit-rooW, between twelve and one 1.31., to draw off so me rum for &- portion of the watch below who were sick. While draw ing off the liquor, the candle which he carried fell k u fipre,on a quantity of dry oakum, which immediately too and before an alarm could be given the flame h ad caught the spirits. So rapid was the prog re ss of the fi re that scarcely an effort could be made to check it before the whole ship was in a blaze; while the thick smoke was P powerful that, as is supposed, none of those who were it bed succeeded in reaching deck. In the meantime th flames had shot up the shrouds and stays, and in endeavouring to cut them away the survivo rs were dreadfully scorched. The ship had ta'o boats, : 31, in about a couple of hours after the h-'a t " ( less the long-boat was got over the side. The st,.7 l 7. c ar ilow , went into it, and the others were preparing to = ° "w as when the captain and the mate (whose name „, Johnston), made an effort and got into the cab:et with the intention of saving the ship's papers ; OW had, however, either fallen through the burning floor, or been suffocated by the smoke, for they were not Will Ling the spoor; seen. Six seamen and the stewardess succeeded in get-- tirg into the bet, and though so much injured clear ba capable of little exertion, they managed to the f.hip, the sea running at the time very high. The shiP had now burned to the water-edge, and though there was another boat left, no hope can be entertained that any were ',eyed by it. The survivors had with them only aiX or seven biscuits ; and after drifting about for two days and nights, they were picked up about forty miles off the d Butt of Lewis,et f a -s, t y the Greenock of Port Glasgow, bound for Wick, at which port they were landed. Their names are Margaret and William Mackenzie, or Willia ms (sister and brother); Zechariah Williams and Alonzo Macdonald; John Smith; Joseph Ford, and W ID. Je W ick• stone. The three last-mentioned have been left ill their injuries being so severe as to unfit them for veal' By this dreadful catastrophe eleven lives have beenlost-ry the captain, mate, second mate (an Irishman known en„' an d as Timothy), and steward ; the three passengem he" ~ four of the crew. The seamen who ha ve rase Inverness have been conveyed to the I • Thr theril Infirmary, e here their wounds will be attended Ito: They have lost their all, having scarcely any clothes upon them. Inescaped vi tla wic k the obtained some aid from the autboritie.s, to we i : as a certificate, which the rain destroyed. .The who' crew were Americans, though the parents of. the taco; keezies were originally from the Isle of Si:zYet fr om ' which they had emigrated to St. John's, New Brtin r a ly " d. Macdonald's father also belonged to this neighboeho° ---- l E V ._ E A R n PO im O p L r , ov b e i d AT fe 2 el l i . ng RAILWAY SHARE IVIARKB7' STOCK EXCIIAN L G leSted itself in our share market to-day, there being a bett..'7, o o, mand than of late. It was publicly announced at the S. 44 Exchange that the directors of the Manchester and Lee' , 0 the Manchester and Sheffield, the Great Western, and t 1„ Midland Counties had all announced their determination te, has ram.'" r de . stop all their works that were not indispensably necessariv and consequently not to press for calls. The sales are -7 A , - .nber&ate, Nottingham, Boston, and Eastern Junction, li-t Bs. 9d. dis.-Birmingham and Oxford, 6 p.-East LOS'S:. shire New (scrip), 1 / 4 dis.-Leeds and Thirsk, Preference, .13_ 3d. dis.-Liverpo 1, Crosby, and Southport, %p. Lo and Non 11-Western, 168 ,1 , -Ditto, .New Quarters, 9 1 4 P'" Manchester and Leeds, 321. Shares, % dis.-Ditto HalTet, (late Livrpool and Bury), 4 dis.-Ditto. Fifths eate lir' Riding Union), % dis-4anchester, Sheffield, and Gres?Lincollif Eighths, 1/. lie. 3d. dis.-Ditto, Quarters (late _... Grimsby and Sheffield), 24 4 dis.-Midland Stock, 113 . 1 4 .. Diu:), 401. Shares, 2 1 4 p.-Ditto, New, 1 1 h p.-North Britisl. New Quarters (scrip), 3s. 9d. p. -North Staffordshire, (late p.-North-Western, 2 dis.-Shrewsbury and Chester ..... _ N.W M.), New, 1 3 4 p.-South- Eastern and Dover, 354 Ditto, No. 4, Thirds, Bs. 9d. dis. MANCHESTER, MAY 21. IsT ttior STOCK EXCIIANGE.-The sales are--Ambergate, -° a I ham, and Boston, 1 1 / 2 dis.-Blackburn Clitheroe, i 3,,,,,, dis.-East Lancashii e (late B. and P.), ' New , 2 '4 Bide dis"--irli New (scrip), 7s. dis.-Fleetwood, Preston, and Vest __ 1 1 , c. dis.-Huddersfield and Manchester Railway an a d 1e%,',,..„, 1 die.-London and Nor th-NTestern (Manchestern 39:".".., mingham), Quarters (C), 4 15-16 p.--NanchesteLaudsL(eaa late 32/. Shares (late Extension), % dis.-Ditto, 11_1 Oldbagi W. R. U.), 1 4 dis.-North Staffordshire, 1 7-16 p. r and Goole, Alliance, 7-16 dis.-South Yorkshire, Doncaste , :-Yl. dis.-Wharfilale (late North-Eastern), IN diS. LEE, MAY 21. S TOCK EXCHANGE. -Th DS e sales are-Arnbergate, Notting. ham, and Boston,dis.-East Lancashire,New (scrip), 4s. 6d. dis.-East and West Yorkshire, 38s. 9d. dia.-Great Northern, 1 ', , Y 3 dis.-Huddersfield and Manchester, 10s. dila-. Ditto, Thirds, 53. dir.-Leeds and Bradford, 43% p.-Leeds and Thirsk, New, 5 1 / 4 dis.-Ditto, Preference, ss. dis.-Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland, 19s. dis.-London, Brighton, and South Coast, 5114 -London and Portsmouth, 20s. di5...... Malton and Driffield Junction, 1.12 dis.-Manchester and Leeds (late Ilud. and Shell.), par-Ditto, 321. Shares (late Extensions), 12s. 61. dis.-Ditto, West Riding Union, 10s. dis.-Manehester, Buxton. Matlock, and lliidland, 12s. 6d. dis.-Newcastle and Berwick, New, 1% s. p.-North British , • Thirds, 255. p.-Ditto, Extension (scrip), Is. 6 d. p.-North. • Staffordshire, 1% n. p.-North-Wcstern, 2 dis.-Roys ton ° t n and Ilitchin, 2e. 6d. p. HULL, MAY 21. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Blackburn, Clithe roe, &c , Preference, - A p.—Great Northern, 375.--Manches ter and Leeds ( West Riding Union), lh dis.—North British, Extension (scrip), Is. 6d. p. SHEFFIELD, MAY 21. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The sales are--Ambergate, Notting ham, and Boston, 31s. dis.—Manchester and Leeds (Wat ; Riding Union), 9s. dis.— Manchester, Sheffield, and Linc,eln shire (Grimsby and Sheffield), 12/. 10s. Shares, 24 die.-- Newcastle and Berwick, 4% p.—North-Western, 2 c. York and North Midland, Extension, 154 p. GLASGOW, MAY 20. STOCK EXCHANGE. —The sales are—Airdrie and Bath.. gate, 725. Gd. --Clydesdale Junction, 421.-,-Dundee and Perth. 3016 —Ditto, Quarters, 525. 6d.—Edinburgh and Perth ( New Co.), 303.—Glasgovr, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, 17 4 —Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Avr, 116/.—Glasgovr and , Greenock, 171.—Ditto, Halves, Bth -Manchester and South ampton 10s. 6d.—North British, Thirds, 46s.—Scottish Cen tral, 231 A. L.-r- - -- - -- -- --=. T FOR ray • There has not been the gooseberry to the and on several kinds ed with doom, apple and pear, is cover wall-fruit is he case with cherries, such a promise for fruit for nanfri3ol:in3;ars as there is this sea all kinds, Which. s injury stohneT.frliEßitv. illesryna•lOrkeSianddi:ouf_efirluistett.ree, bl from the frost. fatuous, are also The damsons, for which this country is so g se o e o n s l e s be t rri o eil,vaepreisceoats,peadndanwyitsheriou of setting, and promise to make u p for the total year. Within the last fe w da y s, the apple t 9 __ A and Morello cherries have all burst into full blossom, u...• r fa s ilu e e ar of tr l e a s es s ee p r render every orchard and garden fragrant arid beautiful.-- Liverpool Times. A BAD BREAST OF SEVEN YEARS STANDING CURED' ET HOLLOWAY'S PILLS ANT, OINTMENT.—Mrs. Davis, residing WW2 Life barraiks at Cardiff, had a bad breast, which, seven years ago (bf a bruise), commenced swelling. and ultimati ly five abscesses forraear di sc h a rging large quantities of hum our, which no treatment calla cure. She was much debilitated in her health, indeed her constitu tion seemed to be breaking up very fast. By chance she sailed on neighbour who was using Holloway's Pills and Ointment, and wa ° ' i af ien v he i as weeks eoe l f i k ei it to D o er ; u r b y gr getiatisstetst,nb and became i h n a l l c et h va s rs l o i w e f eesdlsliod, asr Hollo wa y 's eil d ro iw t t h am e y,as, r s eS Ei rd a3 t tha w obrusli as t iiie l . ra ia en t l l, 244. Strand, London. [ADvEETISEDIENT.] —TELESCOPES, RAcZ AND OPEl ut " GLASSES.—SENT INTO THE COUNTRY FREE UPON APPROBATION:"... 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Newly-invented Opera and !.,!_,. course Glasses with extraordinary great powers: a minute j i b , ' can be distinctlyseen at the distance of ff om ten to twelve Illi i L"., These valuable newly-invented Glasses may be termed conven a.... ~.1 la Telescopes for both eyes, and have new become general the., carriage and out-door purposes. Achromatic Telescopes? . ‘ . 41 ., most powerful ever made, with Lenses of clear transparent "`— other liancy which possess such great powers as to supersede everYd om kind for the waistcoat pocket, shooting, reili purposes, &c. ; naval officers, sportsmen, tourists, visitors, Liscicospea.st ~,i d t G h l e ass s e iz s o . o A f ls a o, visitors, should not be without one of those valuable Tele_ . zi y , lavaclunruiot,ustvoerdyiscsemrnallmWinauisttecoat Pocket .0 1 7. di , spec tanee of from four to live miles. NewlY inYefect vision,. tacles. Immediately they arc placed before lull; at once re that mist and dullness which appear before the ey.e_se most a ged de-. moved, every object becomes clear and distinct; tisn d brought to it it teetive qght becomes bright and brilliant , aible and all kinds ct youthful, natural, and original state. Inv's Caution- d aftiesS. cot I-• Acoustic Instruments, for relief of extreme e t in anY waY Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, are theirne immediate neigh r nected with a person of the same name i in anerve, Only t • bourhood. To prevent mistakes, be caut ous . die York Hotel. posit° objects be had at 39, Alhemarle-street ,ll " ad e ted BIBTHS. On the 19th inst.. at Torrington-square, the lady of R. 1 3 . Grantham, Esq., of a daughter. Oa the 19th inst., at Cl ap h a m New-park, the wife of Pi , Hanbury, Esq.,. of a son. On the 19th inst., Mrs. W. H. Carlin, of Ludgate-streets of a son. On the 19th inst., at Larkhall-lane, Clapham, Mu. Jobs G. Perkins, of a son. On the 15th inst., at Huntley Hall, near Cheadle, the wiP of the Rev. George Mather, of a daughter. On the 17th inst., at Beauchamp-square, Leamington, t' lady of S. Blyth, Esq., of a son. - On the 113th inst., at Yate Rectory, Gloucestershire, tbo lady of the Rev. G. L. Harvey, of a son. On the 18th inst., at Sutherland-street, Walvrorth, Mr* George S hadbolt, n., of a daughr. Mrs. X , On the 19th inst., at Hanger-lante e , Stamford - bi ll, Jerram, of a son. MARRIED. On the 18th inst., at Ripley, L. Uppleby, Esq., of Hoot' ton House, Lincolnshire, to - Eliza Roberta, daughter of tbe late Rear-Admiral Sir 'Robert Barrie, K.C.B. and K.. 11,1 of Swarthdale, Lancashire. Oa the 18th instr, at Ripley, Yorkshire, Edward Boodi r ie , to of Lincoln's Inn, barrister -at-law, Julia, eldest daughter of the late Rear-Adm iral Sir Robert Barrie, K.C.11, and K.H., of Swarthdale, Lancashire. ht, John Bro ker. On the 18th inst., at Co wes, Isle of Wig Esq. of Fenny Stratford , B ucks, to Julia Caroline, youngest dzug ' hter of Rear-Adiral Ratsey. On the 18th inst., m at St. Martin's, Canterbury, Captelis Henry Buckley Jenner Wynyard, to Ann , you n g est daugh Vicar oin ter of the llev. J. -Townley, f Steerpstead,Esse°' DIED. On the 15th ult., at Edinburgh, in the 49th year ot;lis age, John Munro, Esq second son of the late George Manse, Esq., of Culrain, in the county of Ross. On the 19th inst., Harriet Frances Hazel, youngest daugll- ter of Mr. George Hazel, surgeon, London. On the 2 , 1 inst. , at Caen, in Normandy, Victorine, the Wife of Ludwig Rosenthal, Esq., of London. On the 10th inst. , at Dresden, Mrs. Elizabeth Webster Thode, relict of the late C . J. F. Thode, Esq., aged 79. On the 18th inst. , at Bri g hton, the Rev. Robert Butler, Vicar of St. Jelin's, Kilkenny, aged 52. On the 13th inst., at Canonbury-square, Islington, Willilll3 Houle, Esq., of Lloyd's. ..T 11 14 : . ,;1,:.:;.; .'ublistied by A:IJILDO YOUNG, of ~0•__,,,,t -;,ri le , 1 ,r, a te The ;Sun (Alice, No. 112. Strand, in the rr° l l2 of the Savoy, in the County of Iliddleses, Saturds.y, Jug 1847. . ~--=. 4 11111 the the 6 :411 MO Ma: /fel ittu Sea Wit US flit OK telf 3 let tits eel Ile - al