The Sun. — London, England, 1847-05-21 00:00:00

e l. ' lama th s Bill, and was ono which ought to be introduced also in Ow navy. Lord SA.LTOUN thanked the Government for the in trop uction of the clause. The report via then agreed to. Seve ;al Bills were advanced a stage, and =.4 Ile House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 20. SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Four eelc THIRD READINGS. Ti le following — Bills were read a third time and passE d.:--Belfast Port and Harbour; Birkenhead Com missi caliQrs Dock Acts Amendment (Construction of New Dock x and Alteration of Culvert); Dublin Consumers' Gt "; L?uffryn, Llynvi, and Porth Cuwl and Llynvi Val ley 1 . . 4.6i1 ways Amalgamation; Glasgow, Dumfries, and Cull ;le Railway, and Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and . -,- ,Ay r Railway (No. 4); Inverness Gas and Water; " 4 " L ti on, Sewage Chemical Manure; M`Leod's (Dalkeith followif 1.. Bills Glebe) i I,tate; Runcorn Gas; Ryde Improvement. ` - ' ll *.f : motion of Mr. WISE, the third readings of the 13 ,, . 0 w ere p p , • . postponed:—The oned.—The Waterford Road . 1 . ) " , at cl the Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin " al b" I (no. 1) Bill. REPORTS. The following reports were brought up:— Aberd een Harbour. Ambe, Tate, Nottingham, and Boston and Eastern June. tion .Railway (Alteration of Line and Branches to Nott . tngham). A yr 11 arbour. rshi re Roads. Caledo: Tian Railway (Branches to Canonbie, &c.) Caledo aian Railway (Lease of part of Glasgow, Dumfries, and t 13arliale Railway). C "enti Ir, Banbury, and Oxford Junction Railway. East L incolnshire Railway (Louth Navigation Pur chase East Li aeolnshire Railway (Branch from Louth to Lin- G lcaosigno): w and Shotts Road. tiv rP' )01, Crosby, and Southport Railway and Branch. Londoi i avid South Western Railway (Andover to the Bast ,opstoke and Salisbury Branch, &c.) Mac I Jun' Harbour. Metz-op° litan Sewage Manure. Nationat Mercantile Life Assurance Society. lqevepor t, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway De viatin as. Il ewPer t, Abergavenny, and llereford Railway (Exten sion to Taff Vale Railway). NNoorrtthh St afford s h ire R a il way (Alt era tions andßranch e s.) St gaffordshire Railway (Churnet Valley Line and Trent V a ll ey R a il way J unction ). Ports' .nith Paving, Lighting, and Improving. Regent's Canal Company (Paddington and Limehouse Rai,vvay and Branch). l ' ltc llvich Haven. Illiderlaf id Improvement, Markets, and Bridge. R R ' Dock s . zWert arkw orth Harbour. C Jornwall Railway. T rusts. and Melcombe Regis Harbour and Bridge a'ru us. The reports on the following Bills wore considered and eed to • r t tirtiggnor:On, Northfield, &c., Rates. )114 and Ely Railway (Deviation and Lynn Docks). LORDS' AMENDMENTS. 4132 n O le motion of Mr. R. SPOONER, the Lords' v,,,,!4c'aments to the Newmarket and Chesterfield Rail "' (Extension to Thetford) Bill were agreed to. EDUCATION. ism r• THORNELY presented petitions from Wolver edv( Pt°n, praying that in any grant for the purposes of "Lion, the Roman Catholics might be included. P e . . HEALTH OF TOWNS. T ow talons were presented in favour of the Health of W ns Bill from Hull, Leeds, places in Cornwall, and Tington. TRUCK SYSTEM—COAL MINES. Co! DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the try • •t ainers of England and Wales, complaining of the system, and praying for the appointment of Go runient inspectors. „ ” POOR-LAW BILL. Mr * ENLEY presented petitions from llenley-on . haraes and Warwick praying for the amendment of the roor-law Bill of last year. REPORTS ON RAILWAY BILLS., B a r. r rh GREENE moved that the report on the Paisley, aide e . ad, and Hurlat Railway Bill be taken into con the rat on this day, notwithstanding that the breviate of tht as amended in Committee, has not been laid on „,table the day previously. Also, that the report on men ` Sisley Renfrew Railway (Sale and Improve- Bill, be taken into consideration this day, not that the breviate of the Bill, as amended Prt 1/4Truraittee, has not been laid on the table the day 'vluusly,..._A greed to. WI% pr "RAND ANATOMY ACT. W z o t "",, AND presented a petition from numerous _ ,that 'uesPeople in the town of Leeds, complain ca:rtied,e provisions of the Anatomy Act were not "''urns 411 r1 that the inspector did not send annual • Th e . uses o ar lament as he was bound to lartayie Petitioner ital'f,hel°ol:de°lr oi; thlet prayed tbj the ll° Parliament as he was bound to lX•OYisiona ooners prayed for an investigation into the Act, RAILWAYS BILL. ' l waYs Bill day for the second reading of the was discharged. O pu SE AG RICULTURAL TENURE. Tots Y Presented several p etitions from different the cou ntry pray i ng f or an improvement in the of agricultural tenure. REPORTS ON PRIVATE BILLS. 1 ‘ 11. • GISBORNE gave notice that, at the time of .privatel'd b us i ness, at t h e fi rs t mee ting of the House after the holidays, that, reports upon private Bills should be further consi dertul in that House. PAROCHIAL RATING. Hox. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn) Bre sented a petition from an union i n th e coun ty of rickingham, praying that a system of union rating latould .be substituted for the present system of paro chial relief. NOTICES OF MOTION. tnMr. FERRAND begged leave to give noticeor the Home Department, that to ,orrow night he should ask the Secretary f epartment, if' any inquiry was tobe instituted into the truth of a re p ort now c i rcu l ate d in Sheffield, that the I)° dy of John Darby, an i nma t e o f the union workhouse 'thee, who died on th e 10th o f D e c., had been cut up lino quarters, and sold for 9s. a quarter, and that the etGovern or had refused to the friends of the deceased any thspetethetiron of the books or any information. Also, ua m rby, teath, a coffin :n the 19th of February, five weeks after the purporting to contain the body of John n i ter r d the church of the district. V.res - e r n . P VART e in notice that to-morrow he should a p e on ga fr v o e the inhabitants of Newcastle, in kAew South Wales against the present system of trans irtation to that colony • and also that on Tuesday after l_ne holidays he should move for an inquiry into the salt ‘annopoly in India. SCOTCH REGISTRATION. jsr the d 4 „ A CKENZIE gave notice that, on the priler of latin do goin g i nto C omm i ttee upon t h e B i ll regu in O ns Y,,t i ne regi s t rat i on of bi rths, d eaths, an d marr i ages , tnon t hZ 4 nd, he should move that it be read that day six IT TT , t t o l h;i" ' ,I E gave notice that to-morrow he should Majesty's Government if they had any objection -ma tlyen the table of the House the instructions under i t - 1 7 tee naval officers at Portugal at present interfered t he affairs of that country. HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL. In answer to a question from Sir J. DUCKWORTH, Lord a Would. RUSSELL replied that on Frid a y, the a 28th, proceed with the Health of Towns Bill. Per aPs, on th e same evening, if time permitted, the Govern ellt would proceed with the Loan Discount Bill or C°lxiMittee of Supply. To-morrow he would state which "these should have precedence._ zar. BUCK h ope d th e Government would not press fo rward the Health of Towns Bill, as it was generally opposed by the leading towns in the kingdom. COLONIAL AND BRITISH SPIRITS. Mr. MOFFATT, in rising to bring before the House his Bill for assimilating the warehousing privileges on colonial and British spirits, said that he should trouble th e House with very few observations, as this question had been sufficiently discussed already. His object was to assimilate the warehousing privileges on colonial I ttld British spirits. In Scotland and Ireland the privileges Of bonding and paying duty only on that portion which was taken out of bond was already conceded, a nd he wished th at England would adopt the same rule. T he principle of the Bill had been recommended by the parties most b. interested and and therefore best acquainted with the su ieet, and he thought that on the question of revenue theePposition would be given by the Chancellor of Exchequer. With reference to any defrauding of revenue, he begged to remind the House, that while there were 178 distillers in Scotland there had been only v,67hi were lodged within the last few years, Cdoisn:rasiitthilsreslt:tned, of where there were ninety-seven tillers, no in formations had been lodged. Let them were few distillers and latio informations. This regu things with England, where there many n only affected the manufacturers of spirits , and her therefore he was ent i tled to either one pro t ec ti on o r the Ot , and he beli eve d t h at di st ill ers genera lly, if they W ere left untrammelled, would rather distil from wet cor n than i f rom sugar. On the other hand, they woulda ii ract f they had the oortunity to distil from barley, b e e cinsequently if that were allowed, there would h ei ,a much larger qu an tity ex p or t e d. It was generally Wllle'red tha.t there were about six million gallons he f toilts consumed in the United Kingdom, and Rae amount of the spirits distilled is nine for; and i .l", there are three millions to be accounted s ia by th e t rl n °7.n that upwards of two millions are taken th em g ish and Scotch distillers, in order to keep a iieut 3d. of the export market, so that, allowing only g a °e for the loss the English people are taxed to the it ztent of 100,000/ . Chancellor he must confess, to ascertain what reason the per annum. He was, therefore, sicancellor of the Exchequer had to allege for any oppo • I, 1 " te the measure. Whatever Whatever the article, uran c i, rum, o r gin, the same evil was liable to occur to the Zonvsurner of spirits, and he should therefore conclude by th ing that the House resolve itself into a Committee of e whole House. fleThe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must al!y resist the proposition of his Hon. Friend. True IL !night please the English and Scotch distillers, while it i n w ,tfi e ht not Prove injurious to the revenue ; but it other- I.,,rclight Prove detrimental to the public service. - ' 1 • said, as to what would please or "13 P 6 ase the distillers of ± , :lisiand and Scot the Chu as . „ not the question for that House or b Eieo. the Exchequer to consider. The J 9 o u s e t t a n , t) „ 1 -> --,-idered was, whether it was right and h6yourdu'ra.tciopnai ii,n,; ith.r(on,,ml,l jbaemrauicta"psohlolutlldte be V, and rum coming from Scotland not, was most extra () b s e " a u ilo r w ee e ' d in tt . Ja e fl J a ill . ary, and an anomaly he could not account for. thought that the Roue ought to secede to the mo- THE SON. LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 21, 1847. tion of his Hon. Friend, and resolve itself into a Com mittee of the whole Hoetie for the purpose of considering the important subject brought forward by his Hon. Friend. Mr. BARCLAY thought that the House ought to enter promptly into the redress of the grievance com plained of by the Hon. Member. The indirect result of this question was far more important than it at first appeared. The present Excise regulations required an immense outlay of capital, and the consequence was that the trade of distillation was in this country confined to a very few persons, and by means of this monopoly the prices of the article were kept up very considerably. He thought the first proposition of the Hon. Gentleman was very reasonable, and that the second was based on perfectly sound principles. Now he believed, if they allowed British spirits to be rectified in bond, they would lay the foundation of a considerable export trade in that article. Mr. MOFFAT replied. He had heard nothing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the slightest weight against his motion, and he hoped his opposition would be considered equally unsatisfactory by the public. The principal ground of the opposition of the Right Hon. Gentliiman was, that the revenue would lose it his Bill became law ; but he (Mr. Moffatt) did not think that any such result would follow. The House then divided, when there appeared — For the motion 5l Against it Majority against the motion BRITISH SPIRITS. . _ Mr. MOFFATT moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, with a view to adopt a Bill to permit British spirits to be rectified in bond for exportation, and to permit rectified spirits and compounds to be warehoused for exportation. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the objection to this Bill was that it would ultimately be impossible to rectify spirits at all, for if the duty was only to be charged after the spirits left the premises of the rectifiers, the Excise would not have the slightest check for levying the duty on the spirits in the country. The Hon. Gentleman said that his Bill was founded on the Bill of an Hon. Friend of his, who some years ago was Secretary to the Treasury ; but that Bill had not been proceeded with from that time to this. Experiments had been made as to whether it was possible to ascertain the different state of spirits while they were in the hands of the recti fier. If they succeeded he should have no objection, but at present he did not apprehend any such result. The adoption of the Bill would result in a loss to the Exchequer, and he should, therefore, have to raise the duty to suppl y the deficiency, which the state of th e country would not permit him to do. Mr. HUME said, at the present time large quanti ties of spirits imported from Holland were exported to the Colonies, in preference to a better and more desirable spirit which could be exported from Scotland if this measure were adopted. He was surprised that more of his free-trade friends did not support the last motion. He was at all times ready to support the Mi nistry when they were acting rightly, but in oppos ing this proposal they were stultifying their former votes upon free trade.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the best way to remove the difficulty would be for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the subject. Mr. FORBES said that, if he understood the case rightly, it appeared that a great portion of the trade of this country found its way into the hands of the Dutch distillers. He really hoped that those Hon. Members who were in favour of the British distillers, and those who were in favour of free trade, would give their support to the motion of the Hon. Member. _ vv Mr. BARCLAY thought so much weight ought not to be attached by the Government to the objections of the Excise. If those objections were always to be raised as a barrier against fiscal improvement, the effects might be most disastrous to the best interests of the country. Mr. MOFFATT replied. _ _ _ Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place. CASE OF MR. DILLON. Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved for copies of the follow ing papers respecting Mr. John Dillon's claim for prise money out of the proceeds of the smuggler brig Peru:— Statements of George F. Young, G. Punic, and Fergus O'Connor, Esqs., as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's agreement in Mr. John Dillon's case. The decision of Admiral Sir E. Codrington on said agreement ; and the opinions of Admirals Sir C. Martin, Sir R. Stopford, and the late Sir P. C. Durham thereon, and the legal opinions of Justice Sir 11. Maule and the late Sir William Follett thereon ; also the affidavit of Mr. William Burt, then chief boatman of the Coast Guard station at Milk Cove, county Cork, with reference to the Peru ; and likewise the affidavit of clearance from the Custom-house of New York by Mr. James Hitchcox, master of the Peru, and the manifests of the cargo of the said brig, and the affidavits of Mr. Patrick Monaghan thereon ; also for a return of the quantity of tobacco seized in the Peru, and the amount paid to Mr. Henry Masters, Custom-house officer at Kinsale, as prize-money, on account of such seizure ; and, lastly, for a copy of the letter addressed to the Lords of the Treasury by Mr. John Dlilon, dated the 20th day of March, 1847, The Hon. Member went into the particulars, which have already been several times before the House, and con tended that Mr. Dillon had been badly used in regard to this matter. It was said that he was not the actual captor of the brig in question, or directly engaged in the business ; but to that he would reply, that it was gene rally admitted, if it could be shown a party was in any way a party to such a ca pt ure h e was f a i r l y ent i t l e d to his share of the prize -money. That Mr. Dillon had been so engaged had been satisfactorily proved by high authorities. The Hon. Member then referred to several naval a n d l ega l authorities, to show that the claimant was fully en ti t l e d to his proper share of prize-money. He had no intention to follow this out, but the officer was exceedingly desirous that his character should be cleared of the charge of cowardice under which he now laboured, and that he should receive some remuneration fur his loss of pay and character. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would take the matter into their consideration, as the petitioner, he believed, had expended much money and time too, and was, he believed, in very reduced circumstances. Mr. PARKER said that on the part of the First Lord of the Tresury, he had to say that the papers were now in so different a shape that it was impossible to render them as they were desired. The original papers had been returned to the memorialists. Lord Spencer, through the medium of Sir Edward Codrington, had already decided the question, and he could not consent to have it re-opened. The question had been decided over and over again. All that were really public and official papers the Treasury were ready to produce, but those that were copies of private documents returned to Mr. Dillon himself they must decline. Mr. WAKLEY said that he could not help thinking but that Mr. Dillon was an injured man; at one time his request was refused because be was charged with cowardice, but when that is challenged and found to be inaccurate, then they went upon another tack. Why, then, was the question of cowardice raised, unless it was intended to be relied upon—it was unbecoming the Minister of the Crown, or the conduct of a great de partment, to act in such a petty manner. Now, he would ask the Hon. Gentleman was he prepared to refer the question to a Select Committee if he refused; he was quite confident that he did so, because he did not feel thoroughly impressed with the justice of his case. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he had not any objection to grant the returns moved. Mr. F. BARING said that he hoped justice would be done ; and denied that there was any indisposition on the part of the Government, to which he had the ho. nour to belong, to render Mr. Dillon, or any one else, all that justice or propriety demanded. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD thanked the Right Hon. Gentleman for the courtesy which he had mani fested towards him, upon the present occasion ; he of course, should remain satisfied with the concession which had been made to him, but the impression must still remain upon his mind that Mr. Dillon had been hardly treated. He would, therefore, withdraw his motion. NEWFOUNDLAND. Mr. HAWES moved for leave to bring in a Bill en titled, " An Act to render permanent certain parts of an Act of the fifth and sixth years of her present Ma jesty, for amending the constitution of the Government of Newfoundland, and to declare that the rest of the said Act shall thenceforward cease to be in force." Mr. HUME desired to know whether there were any other colonies included in the Bill ? Mr. HAWES said that the object of the Bill was to restore the ancient constitution with some few ex ceptions. ADMIRALTY COURT AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. Captain PECHELL moved for returns of all fees pay able in the several Vice-Admiralty Courts at the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, with a return of all offi cers and persons holding appointments in the said Courts, with the nature of the duty performed, and the amount of salary received by each, and, if paid by fees, the annual amount received by each since the Ist day of January, 1842 ; of the registrar's copy of the marshal's certificate of breaking up of the hull and of the sale of the cargo of the slave vessel Diana, condemned in the Vice-Admi ralty Court at the Cape of Good t lope, and transmitted by the agents for the captors to the Treasury on the 11th day of September, 1846. By this return they would see that of 113 vessels captured for being engaged in the slave trade, the captors of 74 of them did not receive one single sixpence for their gallantry. He was deter mined to see, if he had health and strength, to the bottom of all these matters, no matter how high the parties were, who were concerned. These fees were most excessive and it was a great hardship upon those who spent their lives cruising about in these unhealthy situations to be thus defrauded. The judge of the ad miralty court at the Cape of Good Hope said that he had no cognisance of any other party save that of her Ma jesty. They were all aware of what Lord Cochrane said of admiralty courts. He feared, however, that since his time another reformation would be exceedingly desirable as far as the Cape of Good Hope was concerned. Mr. HUME seconded the motion, and begged permis sion to add St. Helena and the Australian colonies to the return; because he had been informed that matters were just as bad in those quarters. Those courts were under no control; they might do as they liked, and if any sub ject ever deserved inquiry the present was that one. Mr. WARD said that there could be no sort of objec tion to the return, and from a specimen of a bill which he had seen, there were other courts which were nearer home which also appeared to have the capability of ma king out a smart hill. If his Hon. Friend could sug est a ny new method fo r the organiztion of these he would be happy to attend t o th em . COMMITTEE ON FEES. courts, The CdA.NekiLLOR , of the Eiji -1 E41.3ER moved to add Lord Seymour and Mr. Pattison to the Com mittee on Fees in Courts of Law and Equity. Motion agreed to. Mr. BORTIINVICK moved the preparation and pro duction of accounts of the quantities of British sheep and lambs' wool, and woollen yarn, exported from the United Kingdom in the year 1846 ; specifying the coun iimies to which they were sent. Of the quantities of wool of the Alpaca and Llama tribe imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1846 ; and of the quantities re exported during the same period, and the countries to which they were sent. Of the quantity of mohair (or goats' wool) imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1846 ; and of the quantity re- exported during the same period, and the countries to which they were sent. Of the quantities and declared value of British woollen manufactures exported from the United Kingdom in the year 1846 ; specifying the countries to which they were sent (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, N 0.341, of session 1846). The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he had no objection to the return moved for. Agreed to. ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the motion for the order of the day for the ad journed debate on the second reading of the Poor-laws Administration Bill, Sir GEORGE GREY, in reply to a question from Mr. B. Escott, said that no doubt that illegal proceed in s had taken place in some parts of the country, but as 3 et no personal violence h,d been committed, and thought it unfair to charge the disturbances that had taken place from the high price of corn to the conduct of the poor law guardians. HENLEY said that the law was in operation for fourteen or fifteen years. The attention of the Poor law Commissioners had been directed within the last few days to communications that had been received on the subject, and he trusted that they would take the means necessary in reference to the subject. He thought they should not make a violent change in this law to which a majority of the people still adhered, from an approval of its principle, namely, local administra tion and central con t ro l. Th e quest i on o f d ue l oca l ad ministration depended upon the weakness or the strength of a Governme n t, w h en G overnmen t was strong it might snap its fingers at poor-law officers, and when there was a %eak Government, this most important law, the operation of which was so beneficial to the country, would be endangered. He did not wish to enter into the abstract question whether or not Parliament had power to delegate its authority on the subject in question. The authorities that had been advanced on this matter were not at all analogous to the matter, and the defini tions that were given of what was understood to be unjust cases of distress, weze most contradictory, as Hen. Gentlemen would perceive by a reference to the report of the Commissioners of 1839, 1841, and 1844. With respect to the medical treatment of the poor, the Commissioners said, in their report, and he would read that report to the House.—(The Hon. Member then read an extract from th e re p ort o f t h e P oor -l aw Commis sioners;)—from which it appeared that the parishes were in the habit of paying small salaries to the medical prac titioners, leaving them to make up their incomes from other sources. The Hon. Member then read an order of the Commissioners, recommending that the charge and salaries of the medical advisers should be left open to competition, but expressly providing that the charges made under that order should not exceed the expenses under the previous system. Now, bad it not been for the humanity of the medical men themselves, the con sequences to the poor would have been disastrous in the extreme. In the parish in which he resided the salary formerly paid to the doctor was 10/. per annum ; under the present system it was reduced to 2/. 17s. 6d. per annum.—(Hear, hear.) And in the union in which that parish was situated the Commissioners had reduced the amount from 300/. to 290 L, being a reduction of the paltry sum of 10/. Now, it was evident that the poor must suffer under such a distressing state of things. Then, with respect to workhouses, he must say that he felt great astonishment at the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De partment, in answer to the speech of the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), that the inspectors of prisons had the same power in the regulation of the diet of the prisoners as the Poor-law Commissioners had in regulating the diet of the poor in the workhouses, such state ments should not be made in that House without, at all events, his (Mr. Henley) endeavouring to show that such was not the case. There were express regulations by an Act of Parliament, the 4th Geo. IV., cap. 64, fixing the minimum of the allowance to prisoners. The amounts fixed by that Act have never been re duced : they might have been increased. That Act also made adequate provision for the spiritual wants of the prisoners, and the appointment of chaplains. Sir G. GREY was understood to say that in the speech which the Hon. Member had alluded to he had merely intended to meet the arguments of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand)—that the Commissioners had exceeded their powers in regulating the dietary of workhouses. Mr. HENLEY should proceed in his course of argu ment, and endeavour to contrast the careful provisions of the Act he had referred to, with the reckless conduct of the Commissioners in the course which they had pur sued towards the poor in the institutions of this country. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the clause of the Act of 4 Geo. IV. c. 64, regulating the appointment of chaplains, and fixing their duties, and contrasted with that clause the order of the Poor-law Commis sioners on the subject. By the one, two sermons on Sundays were to be preached to the prisoners, but by the latter, only one to the paupers. He was not required to catechise the children, or to instruct the inmates, as by the Act of Geo. IV., and a miserable stipend was paid to the clergyman for the performance of his duties. By the operations of this Act, the unfortunate girl who was delivered of a child in the workhouse, was treated worse than the destitute girl out of the workhouse, who had taken away the life of her child, for which offence, a merciful jury found her guilty of the comparatively mild crime of concealing the birth of her child. And when these two girls should meet again in their native villages what would be the result of the treatment they had each undergone? but to impress upon their minds, and the minds of all who were acquainted with the subject, the fact that those who had committed crime obtain better treat ment than those who were guilty of no crime, except their poverty. Now could the House believe that had the Poor law Commissioners made the same provision for the pauper as Parliament made fo r t h e cr i m i na l , cou ld t h ey h ave witnessed so much disease and misery as had recently been found in many of tho workhouses throughout the country?—(Hear, hear.) An HoN. ME:USER here moved that the House be counted. The galleries were accordingly cleared, but there being more than 40 Members present, Mr. HENLEY proceeded to say that he had shown— at least he had endeavoured to show—that the adminis tration of the law ought not to be taken out of the hand of the Legislature. Now he was particular that in making any revision of the present system, they should not in crease the difficulties of parties seeking relief, and he, therefore, regretted the more to see that this Bill did not take from the Commissioners any of those powers which they had indecorously exercised, both as regarded the law and the people. It relieved them of some of the formulas which had brought them into so much dis credit, but it did not take from them the real powers exercised by them formerly. It was intended by this Bill to associate three or four Cabinet Ministers with the Commissioners ; and what, let him ask, would be the result of that step ? Why, what chance would a party have of making an application in that House, for the redress of a grievance, committed under the law, against four Cabinet Ministers, who would constitute a third of the whole Cabinet. Would not every question of that sort have to be fought tooth and nail as a Government question, and then how could these Cabinet Ministers give their attention to the working of the commission. It was foolish to suppose that they could, and the result would be that there would be one or two men as now, conducting the entire business of the commission. Still, however, every question of grievance would be fought as if these Cabinet Ministers vast ae a se ct to m ta e kn political a part iue Governmenttnhe ce miatter, question.awtoteur a d g d v e Look u to o otckhoe again i oa ne t wo uld e. There were thousands employed throughout the country under the poor-l aw , an d i n t i mes of a severe con- t G e tveedr ra election ent t. refrain itfrom would be exercising am s t t sh impossible coin sufficient over them. Besides, ho th oug h t t h ey already number of Government offi cers i n the House, but it was not so much on that account that he objected to this Bill as the mixing up of Cabinet Ministers with a board whose duties were merely connected with matters of petty de tail, such as the election of guardians, examining of ac counts, and appointment of officers; all of which would have to be made Cabinet questions. He had now gone at greater length into the various matters connected with the Bill than he had originally contemplated; and in conclusion he implored the House not to continue a sys tem which left the poor of this country in the state they were in at present—he implored the House to take from the agitator and the demagogue the powerful wea pon which he now possessed, and which he did not scruple to wield when he told the discontented poor, that Parliament legislated for them in one mode, and for the rich in another. Hitherto the people of the country had looked up to the Crown as the redresser of grievances. When they felt that there had been a maladministration of the law, they appealed to the Minister ; but if the Crown were made the adminis trator of the law, to whom would they have to appeal. He warned the House, then, not to be two precipitant in passing this Bill, but to direct their serious attention to more effectually removing the evils of the present sys tem, without adding to the power of the Minister, or he was afraid the time would come when the people would take the matter into their own hands.—(Cheers.) Mr. P. SCROPE said it had been remarked by other Members who had previously spoken, besides those who had just sat down, that this discussion had brought forth three or four different subjects, each of them differing from the other. First, there was the question of the Bill before the House ; secondly, the question which was raised by the amendment of the Hon. Mem ber for Knaresborough, as to the merits or demerits of the Poor-law Amendment Act of 1834 ; and, thirdly, there was the question of the merits and personal con duct of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.— (Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who last spoke as to the difficulty he had pointed out in the existing system, such as the inefficient remuneration given to the chaplain and medical officer of parishes, and the distinction that was made between the religious instruction of the pauper and the criminal; but these were matters for after consideration. The real question for them now to consider was, whether the present Poor. law Commission was good; but before considering that point, he must first ascertain what was the principle of the Act of 1844.—(Hear, hear.) The principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act was the removal of local abuses, and to that principle he asserted at the time the measure was introduced, s He thou;ht, howPver, that to v-boli,ill the commissi,n altorether w 93 not the way to get rid of 'weal abuses. That was one reason of the unpopularity which the commission had met with, for in cinsequence of their seeking to put down speculation, favouritism, and j obbing, a strong opposition was excited against them. Another reason of the great unpopularity, w a s th e p re possession against the exclu sive workhouse test t) the able-bodied poor, which had not the effect, as was anticipated, of raising the wages of the labourer. The poor-law was the very worse of the allowance system. The latter applied no tests, the former applied the labour tests, and tended to bring back the pauper to the condition of a labouring man. There was a confusion in the mind of some upon these two very different systems. He always disapproved of the allowance system. At the same time time there was much to be said against the union workhouses. It might be too much to say with the Hon. Member for Knaresborough to call them gaols, but the defence of these same receptacles, by the Learned Member for Bath, was very humble, when all that he could say to show that they were not gaols was, that the inmates could walk out when they pleased. But it must be ad mitted, with a recent author, that there was a reason difficult to express. Why. every decent man, much more every decent woman, felt they ought not to be there. On the motion of an Hox. MEMBER, the House was counted, but there was a sufficient number of Members present. Mr. P. SCROPE continued—He thought very much must be left to the Central Commission. He would give his support to the measure before the House, but he trusted that by amendments yet to be introduced the Bill would be carried out in the manner he had pointed out. Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that, after what had fallen from the llon. Member for Stroud, there was little left for him, although he thought that the Hon. Member had altogether seemed to mistake what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He appeared to think that that Hon. Member objected to a central control. Now the Hon. Gentleman had advocated the necessity for a central board of control. He regretted that he could not coincide in all the opinions advanced by the Noble Lord who had sat as chairman on the Andover Union Committee. He had to defend the Poor-law Commissioners in dismissing the Assistant-Commis sioners, and he alleged that they were justified in that course; because Mr. Parker, one of these assistants, had conducted the inquiry into the practices at Andover in a very partial manner. No wonder that Mr. Parker should have exhibited something like partiality. The Poor-law Commissioners had sent him down to his own district to make these inquiries, and they it was who were to blame. and not Mr. Parker. The Noble Lord did acknowledge that the proceedings against Mr. Parker might appear on the part of thecommissioners irregular and arbitrary, he (Sir W. Jolliffe) thought they were more than arbi trary, he thought that they bad been also illegal, and altogether at variance with the Act under which they had been constituted. He felt in as full force as the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire the defects of the Bill as at present proposed, and he trusted that in order to make it what it was intended to be, considerable im provements would be introduced into it. He bad ever endeavoured, as an ex officio guardian, to carry out this law in a humane and lenient manner; but he had always found that there were inherent evils in itself which could not be overcome. One of the greatest evils of the law as at present administered was the admission of the able-bodied poor into the workhouses for the House might rest assured that no order or regularity could be observed in these establishments as long as this class was admit'ed. Sir JOHN WALSH regretted that the Hen. Baronet had felt it necessary to advert to the proceedings of the Andover Union, as that inquiry had already occupied the greater portion of last Tuesday's discussion. He (Sir J. Walsh), as one of the Members of that House who was obliged to give his attendance during these sixty days, deemed it r;ght that he should state a few of the reasons which had led him to a conclusion somewhat different from that arrived at by a majority of the meet ing ; and in the first place, it should be remem bered, that the Poor-law Commissioners were ar raigned before a most severe and stringent tri bunal. It should be remembered that as the wielders of an obnoxious power the commissioners were themselves unpopular; it should be further remembered that the Committee was comprised of a great number of lion. Gentlemen well acquainted with these inquiries, and in particular there was one lion. and Learned Member who acted as the advocate of Mr.Farker, and who took throughout a • mrse, the most hostile to the commis sioners. He would say that it was impossible for any pub lic men to submit to a more severe ordeal than they were subjected to during the whole investigation. It was; also to be recollected that the commissioners were also subjected to the suggestions and the in formation which a person thoroughly acquainted with their every act, who had been admitted into the most intimate confidence of the commissioners, who was familiar with the whole course of their conduct, and who was, I must say, most unserupulous—(Cheers) —inasmuch as he was prepared to make use of any in formation which he received in the strictest confidence, however private. No passing expression •of opinion on any subject, however confidential, that Mr. Parker was not ready to bring forward before the Committee in violation, as he (Sir J. Walsh) must say, of all those importance to which he did think it was of the utmost to the public service, as well as the security of private society, ought to be kept up.—(Cheers.) The fact was perfectly admitted that great evils existed in the union workhouse, but those were not attributable to the com missioners. But the main question was the treatment which the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners received at their hands—and here he might remark that the Assistant Poor-law Commissionership was not an office of that permanent character which some gentlemen suppo,ed it to be, it was always understood to be rather of a temporary character, and therefore dismissals and changes ought to have been suffered, and were so, without either complaint or remonstrance. If they all admitted the power of a central authority, they should all admit the perfect right to check and control their subordinates. With regard to the case of Mr. Day, he must say that that gentleman appeared before the Committee with every advantage upon his side ; he had b een led to suppose, t h roug h some misunderstanding, that he had been dis placed to make way or some other officer, which as soon as it w as explained to him, he at once adm i tte d his error. Mr. D ay was a most excellent person, an d a man of very considerable talent, but he rendered himself very unpopular while di sc h arg i ng the duties of a Poor law Commissioner, in a ver y critical period, namely , during the Rebe cca riots ; and it was, therefore, a matter of great importanc e that he should be removed. In his opinion, they acted with regard to Mr. Day perfectly in accordance with the nature of the discretion imposed on the commissioners, who embraced the capability of the person who was e mp l oyed. With respect to M r. Par ker, it does not app ear a very strange circumstance t h at a resoluti▪ on should b e carried that he had not con d ucted the inqui▪ ry at Andover with impartiality, and then that a cry should be made at the treatment which he had received. That would b e removing all the discretionary power, which ought to rest in th e h an d s o f the commis sioners. And now, with regard to the Bill itself, he must say that, although always a friend to the new poor-law, it was with great difficulty that he gav e his adhesion to it. The Ministry would be very assailable from the modification which it was int en d e d to i ntro d uce , b u t lie should not carry his opposition so far as to object to the second reading. Mr. FLOYER said that he considered it was rather painful and humiliating, that after a period of thirteen years, since the passing of the Poor-law amendment, and after the numberless Committees which had sat up stairs, that the result of their labours should be the removal of the Act of last session, and the present Bill, which did not, by any means, grapple with the real or fundamental part of the question. There was a provision that should enable Members of this board to sit in the House. He thought that in some points of view, that that was a beneficial arrange ment, but there were also many objections to it. The Right Hon. Baronet had, however, stated his views so clearly upon the subject, that he thought that the ba lance was, upon the whole, in favour of the proprietor. In looking through the Bill, ha thought that there were the only provisions of any real importance in the mea sure. It was true that a central authority must be maintained as long as the Act of 1834 was kept in operation in all the unions to which the order of the commissioners applied. The able bodied pauper was disentitled from receiving any relief except i n the workhouse. The measure might bo right in some points, but it certainly was one of very consider able pressure upon the poor man, and it would often add that last weight to the difficulties of the poor man which would ruin and sink him. There was another part of the power of the Poor law Commissioners, namely, the power of making regulations for the workhouses. The Right Honourable Baronet the Home Secretary, had alluded to that the other night, and com pared it to the power of the visiting magistrates. But how was the power of visiting magistrat es exerc i se d. They must go in accordance with the rules laid down by the Acts of Parliament. In this measure the Court had absolute and undivided authority to pass such rules, and he did think that the House would have well occupied its time in framing these regulations instead of discussing many other measures, whose import ance was nothing in comparison to it. In the . year 1836 , when boards of g uardians were formed,audto rs among other o ffi cers were appointed they continued tobe in offi ce a b out 10 years. bnt a subsequent regulation altered the mode of their election. Considerable abuses had since, in several instances which he could mention, crept in, and the performances of some of these officers was by no means in conformity with the Act under which their duties were specified. He thought it most desirable that when this measure was brought under discussion in the House, that the House should have been prepared to deal with it on a wider and more extended scale. Lard JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said —Mr. Speaker, Sir, it has been very justly said that in the cour se of this debate , not one question alone, but three que stions, have been under disc ussion ; and th ose t h ree questions have been mixed with various others, of which it is hardly possi ble to take any suffi c i ent not i ce, and much less to settle, in the course of this debate. Yet, Sir, I cannot avoid, before I proceed immediately to speak to the question of the second reading of this Bill, adverting in some degree to the important Questions no doubt connected with it, and on which some Honour able Members h are alread y spoken a t considerable length—l mean e specially the qu es ti on of the poor• law amendment itself, and the question of the administration of that law under the q Poor-law Com missioners, as brought to light by the voluminous evidence given before the Andover Committee. Now, Sir, with respect to the poor-law amendment itself, let Hon. Gentlemen consider what was the nature of that kind of administration which the poor. law amendment is intended to supersede ; bow far it was liable not only to the objection of abuse, and of co rrupt i ng the labourer of the country, and of destroying his property, bat like wise to some of the very objections brought against the present system. We were told that here was an arbi miry power given to a sin, en le cutn;ssioner—a power at variance with the constitution —that any three men should have a power to make laws which should regu- Iste the laws and conditions on which relief should be given to the pauper population of this country. Will you have again this state of poor-law administra tion—(Hear, hear)—because I am not without apprehension that unless this House is determined to persevere in the present system in its plan and objects, we may, in a few years, find ourselves again falling into the system of vicious legislation.—(Cheers.) Sir, it un fortunately happened that the price of provisions rose toward the end of last century to be extremely high, far above any period that had been marked for severity previously, and there was a great difficulty on the part of the labourers in being able to provide for the sub sistence of themselves and their families out of the wages which they received. Whet was the course adopted ? A certain number of justices assembled together, and made a new law on this subject. They made a law, in total disregard of the law of Elizabeth—they made a law that the labouring man receiving wages should have a certain amount paid out of the poor-rate, which was to be measured by the price of the quartern loaf, and the food on which he was ex pected to live ; and reference was also bad to the num ber of his family, and the mode in which they were to subsist. Now it was quite evident that the poor-law of Elizabeth never contemplated such a measur. The Act of Elizabeth provided for the poor children who were left:destitute and unprotected; as for the able-bodied la bourers who might be idle and out of work, it set them to work and, as the condition of their work, provided that they should be paid out of the rates to be raised in the parish or district. Such was the principle of the law of Elizabeth, as read in the House by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, on the last day of the de bate ; but the plan of giving an addition to the wages, and giving that addition out of the district rates, giving it also without providing employment, such a plan was at total variance with the letter and with the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth, and yet, Sir, those gentlemen who complained of the unconstitutional nature of this power should be aware that that change in the law was made solely by resolutions adopted at a meeting of justices.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Sir, the first meeting of this kind was held in the county of Berks, and afterwards similar meetings were held in the various counties in the kingdom, but in which no other rule than their own was discussed. Their decision was perfectly arbitrary. There is no doubt that the new law was adopted with the view of benefiting the people. They thought it was desirable to pass this law in order to enable the people to have something beyond their wages on which to subsist. They did not allow the ordinary rules of society to have their sufficient weight, by which wages would un doubtedly in time have been raised ; they interfere with the Act of Elizabeth with a benevolent intention, but in a manner totally arbitrary, and solely regulated by their own view of public expediency and public safety. Yet to whom are those magistrates responsible ? Sir, the Chancellor would not dismiss them from the com mission of the peace because they had acted from the benevolent intention of providing for the labourers of the country in the exercise of the power entrusted to them; to dismiss them from the commission of the peace would not, therefore, be just towards them, acting as they had from a mistaken sense of duty. But are those commissioners of whom we are now speaking ? They can be dismissed to day, or at any hour, at the pleasure of the Crown, represented by the Right Hon. the Secre tary of State. If the Secretary of State defends them when they do wrong, if their rules and regulations were not conforming to the laws as decided by this House and the other House of Parliament, being under the su pervision of the Secretary of State, they were also liable ' to this second check and control; thus they were not invested with that power and that authority which existed before the amended Poor-law Bill was enacted. But it was found, that although the legislative enactment was a just one—although it was made with a benevo lent intention, and a desire to elevate the condition of the people—it led to gross abuses. These abuses have been stated at great length, and they have been illustrated by an evidence of the most over whelming kind, from the reports of the Commissioners of Enquiry. I need scarcely advert to the various points contained in this report, or to the mode in which those abuses were known to spring up; to the manner in which the vestries had abused their power ; to the manner in which the labourer was reduced to the lowest possible wages, and was dismissed in certain cases by the far mers for a day or a day and a half, and thrown upon the rates. The intention was good, but the effect was not so. The Act of Elizabeth was intended to raise the pauper class to the condition of independent labourers, while the effect of this enactment was to reduce the inde pendent labourer to the condition of a pauper.— ( Rear.) The wholecountry was overspread with labourers receiving support, and a portion of their assistance from the poors-rate, depending on the vestry for elee mosynary aid; depending on the individual caprice of the members of those vestries, who took their own dis likes against particular labourers, and regulated accord ing to those feelings of spite, the relief which ought to have been given according to the law. But, Sir, when the Government of Lord Grey attempted to reform these abuses, it was observed that they could not do so without encountering, and encountering not for a period during which the Bill was passing through Parliament, not for one year or two years, but for many years, the most formidable opposition, and every kind of it. If I may read an extract from Lord Althorp's speech in the year 1834, the House will see what he proposed in the Bill which he brought forward in the name of the Grey Administration. (The Noble Lord read the extract which was to the effect that, the effect of the Bill would be to stop the allowance system; to deprive the magistracy of the power of out-door relief; to give a larger discre tionary power to the Poor-law Commissioners; and to bring into a good state and condition the system of laws and regulation for pauper relief.) Now, Sir, observe what were the interests, what were the prejudices, what was the power he proposed to run counter to? His first measure was to stop the system of allowance. What was the effect of that system? To degrade the labourer, yet although this was a great evil, it was doubt less also a system of indulgence which had the appear ance of benefiting the labourer, and therefore could not fail of being represented as an injury to him. The next thing he said was that the Bill was intended to deprive the magistrates of the power of ordering outdoor relief. Why, although the whole body of the magistracy said it was a power which they beneficially exercised, yet that was not the case with the whole body of the magis tracy. There were many who cherished this power, and who left not the pauper to receive relief from those who were their own neighbours. These were popular magistrates, to whom the improvident labourer travelled five or ten miles out of his parish in order to get an order to the overseer for outdoor relief. The alteration which was made in the constitution of parochial vestries gave great offence to those who were interested in their abuses. In many instances it was found that the greatest evils existed which the measure was calculated to remove. In the parochial vestries the parries who had the ordering of the relief, in a great proportion of cases, contracted for the same—(Hear, hear)—and made a profit on the transaction.—(Hear, hear.) They increased their own funds out of the rates of the parish, and then when the change was proposed, those and the assistants who were under them expressed themselves shocked at the cruelty and impiety of the new law, and the oppression to which it subjected the poor.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore necessary, under such a state of things, to give large discretionary powers to the commissioners. This was absolutely necessary ; as the difficulty, as well as the impropriety of acting on a uniform system was clearly apparent. The measure had to be adapted to the circumstances of the various districts into which it was to be brought into operation, and hence it was considered right to constitute a central power with largo discretionary authority. ' These commissioners have been much attacked They havejieen styled three kings, tyrants, and other terms equally opprobrious. Sir,so far from these charges being founded in truth—so far from the commissioners being entitled to such epithets, it can be shown, that so far from this, they did every thing in their power to give fair and impartial effect to the law which they were called on to administer. In one or two instances, there may have been some reason for calling the discretion of the commissioners in question, and I regret that it WAS so, though it is easy to conceive how much of the opposi tion arose from those who clung to the abuses of the old law, and who, in consequence, declaimed absut the tyranny and oppression of the new. It was a great question in proposing the law of 1834, as to whose hands the administration of the measure should be entrusted, and after much consideration the constitution of a board of commissioners was finally adopted. To the principle of the board the leading parties in Parlia ment then agreed, though in late years great objection has been taken to the mode in which its affairs has been conducted.—(hear, hear.) We have heard of certain resolutions of the Committee on the affairs of the An dover Union, and of the report which that Committee made to this House. It was suggested at the time the report was presented, that the resolutions of the Com mittee should be agreed to by the House, and that a mo tion of censure should be passed on the Poor-law Com missioners, founded on the allegation on that report. This, however, was not done, and I do not think it was advisable. Had it been proposed I should have felt it my duty to oppose it. I do not by that mean to justify what may have taken place in con nexion with the Andover union. The resolutions of the Committee may have been right or may have been wrong, but with regard to the Committee or the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, I do not think it was competent in them to form an opinion of the circum stances under which they had acted. From the experi ence we have had of the proceedings of those gentlemen, I cannot allow the resolution of the Committee to take away my confidence in them. Having general faith in their character, abilities, and integrity, I cannot suppose that they have acted in the affairs of this union without due consideration.—(Hear, hear.) Meanwhile, with regard to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, I think that what has fallen from the Hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire is extremely true. I do not think the House of Parliament would give to the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners a freehold of these offices, and remove them from all con trol of the head commissi oners. With the ordinary officers of the Government departments, absolute power was given, though it was seldom used, to the heads of the several departments to effect any removal they might deem necessary. If a clerk under me was incompetent, and if his retention was not for the benefit of the public, I should feel it my duty to remove him; and I cannot c onceive that the different offices can be satisfactorily filled unless such p owers are placed in the hands of the different departme nts. It is said that the Andover Committee intimated that there was no ground for the removal of Mr. Day or Mr. Parker; so that I m ust say, I cannot say that such a Committee had any such experience of the conduct or proceedings of the gentlemen in cpestion 113 to give a just and correct opi nion.---(Elear.) But it is further stated that Mr. Chad wick has said that there was it division between him end the whole of the Puce law Commissioners, becau s e they were desirous of correcting abuses, and would not en courage and promote any Assistant Commissioners who brought any errors or mal-practices before them. But let us look for the proof of this. When Ido so, I fled • them meagre in the extreme. Mr. Parker says that he complained of the state of the workhouse accounts in 1843, and had done 50 on several occasions since. To this it was mentioned to NM, at the time he first named it, that a Bill was about to be futfrxhiced on the subject, and that he had better refrain from ;king any thing till he saw the result. The Bill was giveg up at the end of that session, and again introduced the session fol lowing. And because this bias been so, it is stated by Mr. Parker that the Poor e law Commissioners had set th e ir f ac es ag ainst him. How, on anything so meagre could they make a founda tion for such a charge?—(Hear, hear.) But I rate.'t say, if this were so, if the Poor-law Commissioners had set their faces against correcting abuses, it was not fair fo; the secretary, or an assistant-commissioner, like Mr. Parker, to go on countenancing such a state of things. They ought either to have resigned at once, or to have complained to the Secretary of State, instead of con tinuing to act under commissioners who were not doing their duty.—(Hear, hear.) 1 think it was a great Jere ' liction in them not to have brought the question under the n( tics of the Secretary of State, if they thought tt e head commissioners were incapable to the task. There is no department, be it what it may, that will be able to stand if those who are appointed:to administer it, instead of acting under the direction of their superiors are continually making their complaints—(Hear, hear) — and instead of performing the orders of their superiors, are undermining, and contriving,—(Hear, hear)—and plotting against those commissioners who are placed over them. No department can, under such a state of things, be expected to act efficiently and beneficial to the interest of the public.—(Hear, hear.) It is that kind of House, which we know, upon the highest authority, will not be able to stand. I think that while these charges is made, and made very loudly, there has not been any sufficient proof of it, and, therefore, the Poor-law Commissioners are, in my mind, acquitted of this, the only grave charge brought against them—that with respect to the making of the law, their ideas of it may have been different from that of the Secretary, they may have con ducted their business in a way which some gentlemen may think—and which all Secretaries of State thought— in conformity with the law ; while there was no doubt that with respect to certain individual cases, such, for instance, as the case of the Andover Union, they com mitted faults of a want of discretion—that several of their decisions with respect to the Andover Union were not guided by sound judgment—that with respect to some other particular cases they may have failed in hitting the regular rule, and that their conduct was not altogether such as might be considered the wisest. All these I consider however as very minor charges ; I con sider them as very inferior in importance, in considera tion of the duties which I have shown were so difficult. and which excited so much odium ; and they are such as I think they should not be arraigned upon.—(Hear. hear.) lam told that, with respect to the working of the law, that although there may have been complaints in particular instances, yet that the general working of the law has been more satisfactory during the last two years, and during the present year, and I can answer for it more especially since my Hon. Friend has been the Se cretary of State for the Home Department I can say that, considering the number of the unions, amounting to 590, the complaints have been remarkably few; and the guardians in general say that they are satisfied with having to receive the orders of the Poor-law Commis sioners, and that they would rather have some rule to guide them, than be left to act entirely according to their own discretion in the administration of the law.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member who opposed the second reading of this Bill, and who moved that it should be read a second time that day six months, made various accusations both against the law and against the com missioners; they were, however, accusations so extrava gant, going so far beyond anything that be could prove, so completely resting upon assertion, that I do not feel it necessary to give a reply to those accusations.—(Hear, hear.) I have taken notice of what I think is a serious charge, viz., that of endeavouring to suppress inquiry; with respect to these other matters such as conveying paupers to Manchester, and exposing them to misery and starvation,—such charges as those, they are so little founded, that I really do not think it necessary to enter into them.—(Cheers.) We some now to that which is the third question under discussion, though, properly speaking, the only question for dis cussion this evening, viz., whether the plan proposed in the present Bill is such as to deserve so far the sanction of the House as to allow this Bill to be read a second time—(Hear, hear)—and here we must first ask the question whether there should be any central control— should we have any central control at all, should we allow the Poor-law Commissioners to expose and leave the law to be administered by the unions and the board of guardians, and in those unions leave each board of guardians to exercise its own discretion as to the mode of administering the Poor-law of Elizabeth and the Poor-law Amendment of 1830. The result of the dis cussions in this House, shows that there should be some central control. I think such a system desirable, both in order to pre ven t the oppression of the poor, and likewise to prevent the occurrence of that which seemingly favourable to the poor is most injurious to the independent labourer of this country. I feel convinced that in many instances the boards of guardians might administer the law in a manner which might be called more harsh and strict than they would if they were amenable to some central body, and that central body one that had to answer for their conduct before this House. Now, suppose with respect to the Andover union, or any other union—sup pose some gentlemen had discovered that there were great abuses in the Andover union, this House might probably appoint a Committee to inquire into the abuses of that union, you might rind in the course of the in quiry that the master of the workhouse had misused his power, and had acted in a manner totally at variance with the trust reposed in him, and the report of the Committee would no doubt be that such workhouse master? should be dismissed, and that the poor- , law guardians had acted very negligently in not dismissing him before.—(Hear, hear.) There might be perhaps three or four of such cases in the course of , the year, but I think there would be very few persons disposed to give their time to such Committees, in which I do not know how many thousand questions were to be asked—we were told to-night by an Hon. Member how many it was—and sit for 60 days for the purpose of in terrogating these matters, and perhaps in the next year have five or six similar cases to inquire into, and re commence an inquiry of the same length and end with a similar result. Those are not objects that would induce Hon. Members to devote their time, unless there were a whole system involved, and some general system in question. We should not find that Committees of this House would enter into the details of the management of every union, and declare its opinion of the competency or incompetency of each board of guardians who were at the end of the year to go out of office, and when some other persons should be elected to fill up their places as guardians, to that particular union. The House must be con vinced that such a system would not be any security to persons suffering hardships under the operation of the poor-law. Would it prevent abuses ? I feel convinced that it would not. In some parts I feel convinced the law would be administered with greater security and harshness, in others " allowance system" would spring up again —(Hear, hear)—in lieu of wages. That system would be disguised by every sort of excuses when there was no assistant commissioners or inspectors over those unions. These abuses would gain renewed strength, and in a few years we should find ourselves in a no better position than in the year 1830 when that system of indulgence and liberality ended in rural insurrection, and setting fire to farm-houses during those times and in those administrations which are now appealed to as the good old systems.—(Cheers.) I come then to this conclusion—that there should be some central control, and that is the conclusion in which I have heard Hon. Members in this House, who are adverse to the Poor-laws, and still more so to the Poor. law Commissioners, concur. Well, then, what should be the kind of control ? The Hon. Member for Radnorshire said that he remembered when Lord Althorp broug h t nthe Bill, his saying that he thought it desirable to re move the Poor-law Commissioners from all party or po- Heal connexion, and make them a body separate, as it were, from the influence of party a n d p o liti cs . I e lieve I knew what induced him to take that view; know, from communications which I have had with him, that his original intention was to propose that the Se cretary of State should form a part of the Poor-law Commission, and that he should have the superintend ence. And along with the other commissioners should have the direction of the Poor-laws. I stated my views on the subject to Lord Althorp and I succeeded in persuading Lord Althorp to abandon any plan placing the Secretary of State in the Commission. I had hoped that the removal from party struggle, that the choice, in every instance, of the Poor-law Commissioners, solely with a reference to their fitness and adapta tion for the office, and without any regard to their party and political attachments or their political party, would, I had hoped, have prevented the administration of the poor-law being brought, as an exciting topic of debate before this House. But, in that respect, I own I have been disappointed. The acts of the Poor-law Commissioners have been brought into that House • the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been obliged to defend them ; and if the House had not supported him in that defence, but disapproved all that he had supp orted and approved—if they had condemned all that he thought worthy of praise, it is obvious he would have been as much committed as if he bad been himself the real of fender. The fact, however, has indeed been that in every instance, whatever Government has been in cower this House has supported generally the defence which the Se cretary of State for the Home Department has made in reply to motions implying censure on the Poor-law Commissioners. Therefore, you have not had a total removal from the affairs of Government, or from the Ministerial interest, that connexion with the Poor law Commissioners which was originally supposed to be ne cessary. We have had certainly freedom from party squabbles, but from th e year 1834 to 1847, with some few exception s , w i t h the leaders of party the other House of Parliament, Poor-law _ has not been made a p o liti ca l question o ut hasof doors. But the question then ar i ses whether , for the Secret ary of State for ' as the it _ b_een necessary o9partment to become aware of a ll t h at the Poor-law H me D Commissioners ha d to do, is it not better that the person who has guided that machinery, who has directed and dictated its decisi on , s h ould not be a member of this or the other House of Parliament, and should be here ready to de fend his own acts and conduct, instead of leaving them to the defence of an imperfect explanation. I admit that in so doing you do connect the poor-law more directly, and I will not deny that evils may not arise in that particular. But let us see where we have arrived ; we have arrived at the point that there shall be some kind of central con trol, and we have arrived at the point that ea pri ence has shown that no control vested in persons debarred from being Members of this House, is a con ; trol which does not prevent the Government of the day ................ I from being in a great degree resomsible for it actions, but does prevent full inquiry :Ind discussio r, in this ',s State for t ecretary _House, whi c h i t i s so desirable should be gone into. Fo r these reasons we are a b out to try that which we now propose. Y ou see I have stated two plans, tilt ! one re of uiring a re f on the part o. c the 4 ‘ other a direct representative o f the Poor-law be Home D epartment, an d the t Commissioners ind d e n i t n i i c s a t l r . this House, and i rr p r i nc i p l e rith the po or -l aw They are both c onnecte d ation and with G overnment - -both li a bl e to all the objections of being ca lculated to e. [cite party oppositi o a nd Governm en t suppr n O a s hd, by that means, g et p art y to that whi c h M em b era of this House might otherwise see reason to object to..—(Hear, h. ear.) I confe ss , h owever, o,:nts - being per sua d e d that yo , u notwithstanding the se must make some cen tr d ciLotrol—being persuaded that the system we have gone since 1834 Eras beeng reri stem tl u a p n e el a seriously defective, Land that defect Lses beenini u 3 1 . 0= both to the Government and p sor sl aw C e onim l i ----- s. sioners—tbat the Government have surTered from that which they did not originate—that the Poor-law Commissioners have suffered for acts of which the whole hisitery was not gone into by this House ; seeing such has been the case there remains no alternative but to connect the poor-law administration with a . iepartment of the Government. I come then to the fur ther ques tion, whether we ought to connect it with a a existing department ? I own I think the Secretary of State for the Home Department has, with the powers of le cretary of State, the various businesses that have been imposed upon him by Acts passed within the last few year . s —the attention he must give to all the other business of the Cabinet, both foreign and domestic—the attent ion he must give to all the business of this House—he ha s suffi cient, if not more than sufficient, to absorb the e" hole of his time and attention without connecting him M>eciallY and solely with the administration of the Poor -law. If that be the case, we must have another seen "tarts or another board. I confess I have no great rave rence for one plan or the other, but Ido not think the plan we have proposed, if liable to the objections th at were stated against it by the Hon. Member for Oxk sedshire, in the course of this evening. He said there will be Members of the Cabinet, who will not be able to pay all the attention to the business that is reqnia •ed, in order toform proper opinions upon points connect' d with the poor-law ; but still being members of the board, they would feel themselves bound to defend pat ticular decisions. I do not think the plan is open to that objection. It is in fact only adoptie.g the plan used, with regard to other departments of the Government. It is in some instances found inefficient to secure responsibility to have a a secretary or president to devote his attention to one particular department, and carry on the business .of that department with the assistance and counsel, if necessary, of the other Members of the Administration. The Board of Trade, for instance, has a president, and has various colleagues connected with him. There is only one person, however, responsible as the President of the Committee of Privy Council upon the affairs of trade ; and with reference to all minor points of detail, either the president or vice-president acts, without reference to the Cabinet ; but if there is a question of considerable importance, all the Members of the Privy Council take part in it. It is not very different with regard to the administration of the affairs of India—with reference to the Secretaries of State, and so on—but as I said before, that is a matter, rather of detail—a matter rather to be considered in Committee, than matter to be discussed on the second reading of the Bill. The real principle of the administration that we propose is, that there should be a head—that there should be a president, who should be responsible for the administration of the poor-law—that that head should have a seat in Parliament— that he should be called upon in Parliament to give any explanation upon all points connected with the poor-law administration.—(Hear, hear.) I quite admit that it exposes Government to odium and obloquy that Government was not formerly exposed to. I admit that it was tar easier for the Go vernment, when every parish depository decided upon every question of relief that came before them, and when all cases of abuse and hardship or cruelty occurred, all the indignation of the public was thrown upon and directed against the particular vestry, and no part of it fell upon the Government of the day. But we have attempted to make a great social change in the adminis tration of the poor-law ; we having attempted in 1834 to reform those abuses which had sprung up by a depar ture from the statute of Elizabeth, of 1796. I think that this reform cannot be carried out or completely effected, unless you have a central control responsible to Parliament. I believe in that manner you may get the machinery to work more truly than it did in the beginning ; you may get it to work so truly, that the cases of complaint brought before this House would be few, and that the answers to those complaints would take up but a little part of the time of the House in debate. What I wish to see is, the Act of Elizabeth, conferring relief should be carried into effect in all its spirit, and in a manner which is conformable with the state of our institutions of the present day. The exact words of Elizabeth are not exactly applicable to the present time, because if you were to set the poor to work in manu factures, they would either be competing with those who have independent labourers earning wages, or their work would be insufficient and useless. But the workhouse system is in accordance with the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth naturally applied—where relief is wanted, relief would be given. That the relief should be large and liberally given, in conformity with the spirit of that Act. I believe it is necessary for the maintenance of the forming of society of this country, and therefore it is that Ido not think that the expenditure which now exceeds the whole sum raised by the property and in come tax of the country—l do not think that expendi ture ought in amount to be complained of, if the source of administration were that which it ought to be.—(Hear.) Admitting that it is an experiment—admitting that it is a change in the present law—admitting that as there were certain defects in the law of 1834, which no one could then see, there may also be similar defects in this measure of 1847 ; admitting all this, still I think that it is, under present circumstances, the most expedient course you can adopt, and in a path beset with difficul ties, the only one that can be recommended to Parlia ment, and I therefore pray the House to assent to the second reading of the Bill.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. B. DISRAELI regretted the lateness of the evening, but hoped that he would be able to compress the few observations he wished to make on this measure, so as to finish before the arrival of the midnight hour.— (Hear, hear.) Although he thought the Noble Lord was a great authority on subjects of that character, he could not assent to some of the propositions which he laid down, and he felt persuaded, however plausibly it might be asserted to the contrary, that the general bu siness of the country must be brought before Par liaments—(Heer. hear.) It was very true that in doing so there might be a certain infusion of passion and an occasional interposition of factious sentiments, but without the interference of Par liament these measures of a special character must al ways prove a failure, and the situation in which they at present found themselves proved the accuracy of that position. Throughout the entire argument of the Noble Lord, and of all those who agreed with him, this falla cious assumption pervaded all their speeches. They said that central control was necessary, and the Noble Lord assured them that that control must be a. metropolitan control.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") There was no middle state —no halting• place, between the most obscure parish in the kingdom and Somerset House.—(Hear, hear.) For his own part, he never for a moment challenged the right of control over the parochial administration of the law, and he thought it would be wrong to agitate that question; but if it was not considered right to leave this parochial authority to itself, it did not follow that metropolitan control was the most eligible mode by which the abuses which ro.- suited from it could be remedied. The laws of charity must be local in their administration, as the feeling it. self was prompted and kept alive by local residence.-., (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, said there was no difference between the control of a parish and, the control of a Minister of State, and however inju rious it might be to bring the parochial administration before Parliament, that there was no middle course for them to adopt. He (Mr. Disraeli) begged the House to consider that central control did not involve metropolitan. control.—(Hear, hear.)—and he did not see why a cen tral control should not be deposited with every county. At any rate, he did not see why it should be set tled in London. The advocates of the measure admitted the evil of large unions, and yet the basis of the present system was a union. comprising all the unions of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let them look for a moment at the scheme of control now before them. The Noble Lord proposes tar bring the to Aral control into Parliament. Well, the n suppose a labourer felt aggrieved in a remote paris h, and that he did not get redress from the poor-lave guardians, what was the next_ ste ? The case was be would a s k brought before Parliament; and w h o , , was responsible for t hat? Why,her Majesty's Ala nisters. It was very well for the Noble Lord td say that party feeling had ne v er yet crept into the dis• cessions on this subject. But he apprehended that time might arise and circumstances might occur when th{t great principles involved in this question would degenep rate Into a party struggle.—(Hear, hear.). With rpgar. to the Bill itself, he did not find fault with it, because * the increase of patronage it lave tothe Crown; ' ' for I it maintained that the amount of taxation,andthe I rec uct tion of privileges, had a l w- ays in this country bore a proportion to the decrease of patron; age.—(gear. But he objected to it, ' and objected most earnestly, t that which still further made the I peroehia. constitution of this country the Parliamentary constitution. ThA moment that they had a Poor-law Minister in that Homo —the mom ent t h at paroch i al affa i rs were brought ins* that House—all that time which was at present devoted to. railways—all the time which was devoted to private buet ness—would be otherwise consumed, and none left fas those purposes when they had converted the Membe II into a parochial—(Loud cries of ‘• Time, time.") TIMP Hon. Member said the quarter was not yet exhausted.... (Ironical cheers.) There wai one other topic which hi). wished much to avoid ; it had nothing to do with th i question. Why it was introduced into the discussi( op was no matter of his ; but it was enough that no one iete the course of the debate bad avoided mention of the A r. dover Union Committee. — (Hear.) He was a memb I, of that Committee, and he wished to make one remelt" upon the subject. The Noble Lord himself, wile the ability which distinguished him, referred to Oik, members of the Andover Committee. That Committals lasted for a considerable time—he believed for a spa ~ o f nearly four mouths. It represented every section opinion in regard to the law itself. But he was houi to say that various as that (pinion was, and strong.k:!. was their co nv i c ti on, h e b e li eve d t h at every member w,,, satisfiod—impress d with the deep conviction that tlii , result of that investigation was beneficial to the publ But the Nolle Lord said he would not listen to 014. accusations when he found an officer had so forgotte„, his duty, that an officer was so chargeable with dercli, b tion that in an underhand manner he should sa t . disoovered creating a factitious public opizioi 00l- )eti- ?ail uth- uth- the Cue- g lad ) his had that Tues. aucla ;hese 13111 a very the pII t 0 lecww stood I from e coticl 3, the (Ire: sbir i Ise, at )f the clesi -3 in .al in of that clesi the The ROW oa' ill of a but ad- rere so the at al' cal Nil ;be