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

"laY of of return Septe m b er, 1846. By this they Would see t hat 113 vessels captured for being engaged in the I .stave trade, the captors of 74 of them did not receive esie single sixpence for their gallantry. He was deter mined to see, if he had health and 'strength, to the botte all these ma tt ers , no matter how high the at of ratiees were, who were concerned. These fees were most excessive and it was a great hardship utam those ',the, spent their lives cruising about in these unhealthy si'.uati'o'as to be thus defrauded. The ;judge of the a d_ Iniralty court at the Cape of Good liope said that he had pc. onjanisance of any other paaty save that of her Ma- J"t.'.7- They were all aware 'of what Lord Cochrane said ,°.f admiralty courts. He :eared, however, that since his Luria another reformation would be exceedingly desirable as 'frr as M the Cape bf G ood Hope was concerned. on FiUE seconded the moti on , a nd b eg ged permis tn add St. H e l ena and the Australian colonies to the return; becaus e were he f - ,ad been informed that matters were .just as bad in t noae uarters. Those courts we under no control; the ject aver dese-a might do as they liked, and if any sub . Mr, ass led inquiry the present was that one. as'stD said that there could be no sort of objec- V° to the return, and from a specimen of a bill which b e o so haci ,„,7,''n, there were other courts which were nearer making -"on also appeared to have the capability of (nit gest an a smart bill. If his Hon. Friend could sug rt neva mhod for the oraization C°u L'e would b e g n happy to attend to them. of these COMMITTEE ON FEES. T r , r1 11 ,7 C HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved to as Lora Seymour and Mr. Pattison to the Com -re on Fees in Courts ef Law and Equity. sotion agreed to. . 0 Mr. BORTIINVICK moved the preparation and pro duction of accounts of the quantities of British sheep and la' ru .°a l wool, and woollen yarn, exported from the vetted Kingdom in the year 1846 ; specifying the coon t'sies to which they were sent. Of the quantities of wool ,n,f the Al acs and Llama tribe imported into the United ~,41-Mgdorn in the year 1846 ; and of the quantities re ,Perted during the same period, and the countries to u'inh they were sent. Of the quantity of mohair (or !i ° sts' wool) imported, into the United Kingdom . in the Lear 1846 ; and of the quantity re-exported during the a l'ule period, and the countries to which they were sent. "i the quantities and declared value of British woollen tu ear aauf actures ea s p or t e d f rom th e U n it e d Ki ng d om i n t h e r sent 184 ; ' specifying the countries to which they were s-ss (h i coninUation of Parliamentary Paper, N 0.341, o f si oo 1 84 , 6). tba T t h b e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said -4grae d " e 'lad no objection to the return mov e d for. to. ADJOURNED DEBATE. t e , ohl the motion for the order of the day for the ad ted d e b ate on the second reading of the Poor-laws ''ninistration Bill, iSir GEORGE GREY, in reply to a question from j a r . rt. Escott, said that no doubt that illegal procee f, ‘ "P.s had taken 'era in some parts of the country, but as f et no personal P vi ience hed been committed, and thought is unfair to chroagae the disturbances that had taken place ,rom the higl. ' f corn to the conduct of the poor teW 14Iguardi • price o ti foam: E P SLEY said that the law was in operation_ for la a ," -e u or fifteen years. The attention of the Poo few ir-nnaissioners had been directed within the last the --4 Ys to communications that had been received on stne s ubject, and he trusted that they would take lie the should not make a violent change tn this to w hich anr , k majority of the people still adhered, fro a m tio o - ',,v r Pral of its principle, namely, local administr - rai • ..11`4 c e ntral control. The question of due local ad of r ostra.. ion depended upon the weakness or the strength zaipta, Government, when Government was strong it th;!, , Snap its fingers at poor-law officers, and when the 1143 a Weak Government, this most important law, °,Peration of which was so beneficial to the country, ah s n ' cl be endangered. He did not wish to enter into the t o ( r a ', ct question whether or not Parliament had power Thp del question its authority on the subject in question. authorities that had been advanced on this matter were oot Co ns th at all analogous to the matter, and the defini ease, at were given of what was understood to be unjust G ec i t of Gist ress, wets most contrad i ctory, as Hen. th.feet„erall would perceive by a reference to Wt - .Port of th e Commissioners of 1839, 1841, and 1844. m th r es Peet to the medical treatment of the poor, the thht"`ssiuners said, in their report, and he would read 11,‘ report to the House.—(The Hon. Member then read s ," extra ct fro _ , nne as tu the report of the Poor-law Commis- Ln th e which it appeared that the parishes were 't of paying small salaries to the incomesponc,„ other leaving them to make up their from of th: s p lire es• The Hon. Member then read an order *ma '°lnnaissioners, recommending that the charge to Jon i of the medical advisers should be left open t,..,,MPetition, but expressly providing that the charges 11,747 unction, that order should not exceed the expenses th e h r the previous system. Now, had it not been for a ecluo ttrnan itY of the medical men themselves, the con es‘tre ne e es t ° the poor would have been disastrous in the sta"rnaer'll; Pad t he parish in which he resided the salary pre sent r s' a a 4 to the doctor was 101. per annum ; under anoo, system it vvas reduced to 21. 17s. 6d. per that ,a."7"jkliear, hear.) And in the union in which tph4ltrae:filaroiastihtwiraosuasiTated the Commissioners had reduced 001. to 290 L, being a reduction of the Vh a t s s ure a e u f u l , ° !... Now, it was evident that the poor l en, With res.'" s uch a distressing state of things. e t gre at ast I) . ect to workhouses, he must say that . he lion. Baronet°lnshalent at the statement of the Right Partment in tbe Secretary D , in answ _ of State for_ the Home De orsetshire er to the speech of the Hon. Member for 1 4 th e satti-rr• Bankes t the inspecto of prisons lt4socrii.ers as thePP"ooerr-lianwt)Cho'emt rate Commissioners eorns hadof the in diet o f regulatingthe to", 1 " of the poor in the workhouses, such state -43, s should not be made in that House without, at all 4 „ e ,_ 114 , his (Mr. Henley) endeavouring to show that b' e n WAS not the case. There were express regulations cap. 64, filin g' the of Parliament, the 4th G The the minimum of the allowance . to Prisoners. - 'e amounts fixed by that Act have never been re duced, they might have been increased. That Act tea made adequate provision for the spiritual wants of "ue prisoners, and the appointment of chaplains. Sir G. GREY was understood to say that in the IPJeeeli which the ion. Member had alluded to he had 111.1,..ere1y intended to meet the arguments of the Hon. Com missioners for K nares b oroug h (M r . F erran d)—th a t th e ` na raissioners had exceeded their powers in regulating the dietary of workhouses. Mr. HENLEY should proceed in his course of argu ?tea of ' 4 l and en d eavour to contrast the care f u l prov i s i ons t he Act he had referred to, with the reckless conduct of the Commissioners in the course which they had pur ;lV towards the poor in the institutions of this country. f towards Member then proceeded to read the clause of „.of.e.ci.i...ptiottifn; Geo. IV. c. 64, regulating the appointment ed and fixing their duties, and contrast . 4 4 7t ti h that Clause the order of the Poor-law Commis ,eia on the subject. By the one, two sermons on the latter,4Yawe rley to catechise t o es ne be preached to the prisoners, but by 4813417 ttohetillket or to the paupers. He was not required . Ise the children, or to instruct the inmates, IV., and a miserable stipend was 11 3' th e 0 e clergYman for the performance of his duties. apss deli gyred of this Act, the unfortunate girl who worse ta ke an of a child in the workhouse, was treated Is_ an the dest't t • tu-saueretitifkuelia; u e girl out of the workhouse, who a way the life of her child, for which offence, a theati„,_ Jury t e ,.., 4L ° r con c -,.""u her guilty of the comparatively . mild tw o """ng the birth of her child. And when 'What girls should tlnderg w o o is u e? l ten t th teore• meet again in their native villages result of the treatment they had each Minds of a u that tho who impress upon their minds, and the were acquainted with the subject, the fact menttb se Wh° had committed crime obtain better treat or,,rt an th ose who were guilty of no crime, except their la:es Co mmis "ow could the House believe that had the Poor %s „ nansissioners made the same provision for the pauper 'Wit ness- went made for the criminal, could they have so much disease and misery as had recently con ' tound in many of the workhouses throughout the A' ll ,,, tl V(Flear h ar ) co u - n - te l'a d. N. I.lEatn' Et here . moved that the House be at galleries were ac cor di ng ly c l eare d, b u t th ere b e i ng v,t4e than 40 Members present, i r. HENLEY procee d e d to say t h at he had shown— ofeast he had endeavoured to show—that the adminis ion of th e l aw oug ht not to b e ta k en out of the hand the Legislature. Now he was particular that in ma ki ng s ay revision of the present system, they should not in ase the difficulties of parties seeking relief, and he, t herefore, regretted the more . to see that this Bill did oners any of those powers til,ot. take from the ~heich they had indecorously ommissi exercised, both as regarded law and the people.. It relieved them of some of then ormulas which had brought them into so much dis t, 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 bthe Co mmissioners ; and what, let him ask, would be 'he result of that step ? Why, what chance would a ar result have of making an application in that ender' ° Pe for th e redress of a grievance, committed ~... the law, against four Cabinet Ministers, who " ol d constit u t e a- third of the whole Cabinet. Would not ev ery questi on of that sort have to be fought tooth these Cabinet a% a Government question, and then how could working Cabinet Ministers give their attention to the that 7 king of the Ministers It was foolish to suppose be they could, and the result would be that there would one or two i ra ss e jo il n a . s now, conducting the entire business Still, however, every question of badri9vance would be fought as if these Cabinet Ministers taken part in the matter, and of course it would a as ° ,. u le a Government question. Look again at the Iln`lPe %th'eere political i n fl uence it would give to the Government. e r Poor-law, employed throughout th e country tested e law, and in ti mes o f a severe con testedoo ele ct i on it would be almost impossible for the o r7rnment to refrain from exercising its influence over to mb , li e,sicies, he thought they already had a sufficient bOt a° roue Gove rnment officers in the House, but it was its the so i xi on that account t h at h e o bj ecte d to t hi s B i ll dutie sa n g uP of Cabinet Mi n i s t ers w ith a b oar d w h ose _were m erely connected with matters of petty de counonit as the e l ection of guardians, examining of ec ho ts ' and appointm en t of officers; all of which would at eto be made Cabinet questions. He had now gone th eate lh ength into th e var i ous matters connecte d w i t h Bill tan he had originally contemplated; and in conclu sion he implored th e H ouse not to cont i nue a sys ,_eta w hich left the poor of thi s country i n t h e state th ey z l e e re i n at present—he implored the house to take from I ? 1 a g i tator and the demagogue the powerful area . t ) i _' , which m seent he now Possessed, and which he not scruple t o w i eld when he told the one ented poor, th a t P ar li ament legislated for them in ica , t acKle, and for the rich in another. Hitherto the • rtd T t le of the country had looked up to the Crown as the been of grievances `,l hen thev ki t ha , there thealtitimal-administration of the lavv, they appealed to turtt_tor mister ; but if the Crown were made the adminis of the law, to whom would they have to appeal. fir w apled the House, then, not to be two precipitant Pe44B lag this Bill, but to direct their maim attentive to more effectually removing the evils of the present sys -1 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. Y. SCROPE said it had been remarked by other Members who had previously spoken, besides those who I had jUat 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 tlis‘, 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.) lie 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, He thought, however, that to abolish the commission altogether was not the way to get rid of local abuses. That was one reason of the unpopularity which the commission had met with, for in consequence of their seeking to put down speculation, favouritism, and jobbing, a strong opposition was excited against them. Another reason of the great unpopularity, was the prepossession against the exclu sive workhouse test to 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 firmer 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 IloN.ltlviinEß, 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 Hon. 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 manlier. 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 the commissioners irregular and arbitrary, he (Sir W. Jolliffe) thought they were more than arbi trary, he thought that they had 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 admitted. _ . Sir JOHN W ALSII regretted that the Hon. 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 right 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 Hon. Gentlemen well acquainted with these inquiries, and in particular there was one Hon. and Learned Member who acted as the advocate of Mr. Parker, and who took throughout a course, 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 unscrupulous—(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 rules which he did think it was of the utmost importance 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. Witb 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 been led to suppose, through some misunderstanding, that he had been clls• placed to make way for some other officer, which as soon as it was explained to him, he at once admitted his error. Mr. Day was a most excellent person, and a man of very considerable talent, but he rendered himself very unpopular while discharging the duties of a Poor law Commissioner, in a very critical period, namely, during the Rebecca riots ; and it was, therefore, a matter of great importance that ho 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 employed. With respect to Mr. Par ker, it does not appear a very strange circumstance that a resolution should be carried that he had not conducted the inquiry at Andover with impartiality, and then that a cry should be made at the treatment which be had received. That would be removing all the discretionary power, which ought to rest in the hands of 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 gave his adhesion to it. The Ministry would be very assailable from the modification which it was intended to introduce, but he should not carry his opposition so far as to object to the second reading. Mr. FLOYER said that be 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 ion. 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, he 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 in the workhouse. The measure might be right in some points, but it certainly was one of very consider able pressure npon 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 magistrates exercised. 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 whose i m p or t ance was no thi ng in many other measures, comparison to it. In the year 1836, when boards of guardians were formed,anditors among other officers were I appointed they continued to Is.- in ffit.fa about 10 years. bat a subsequent regulation altered the mode of their • election. Considerable abuses had since, in several • instances which ho could mention, crept in, and the performances of some of those officers was by no means ltn conformity with the Act under which their duties were TILE SUN, LONDON, specified. He thought it most desirable that when this I 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. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said—Mr. Speaker, Sir, it has been very justly said that in the course of this debate, not one question alone, but three questions. have been under discussion ; and tt.ose three questions have been mixed with various others, of which it is hardly possible to take any sufficient notice, 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 have already spoken at considerable length—l mean especially the question of the poor law amendMent itself, and the question of the administration of that law under the Poor-law Com missioners, as brought to light by the voluminous evidence given before Cie 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 ; how far it was liable not only to the objection of abuse, and of corrupting the labourer of the country, and of destroying his property, but like wise to some of the very objections brought against the present system. We were told that here was an arbi trary power given to a single commissioner—a power at variance with the constitution—that any three men should have a power to make laws which should regu late the laws and conditions on which relief should be given to the pauper population of this country. ‘'‘ ill 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. What was the course adopted ? A certain nuteber 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 had 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 idL 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 Berk s, 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 illus'rated 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 tho 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 effoct of this enactment was to reduce the inde pendent labourer to the condition of a pauper.— ( Hear.) The whole country 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 ginettereas an parochiale dv o ie r ns d t e rt r hieesi t r o the overseer for outdoor relief. The alter a ti on w hi c h was ma d e i n th e cons ti tu ti on o f gave abuses. great offenceln many t o instancesthose itwere was found that the greatest evils existed which the measure was calculated to remove. In the parochial vestries i t n he a parries grent who pro p or had tio n the of e ordering ases of the r e li e f, ms,:de co a ntractei fi l t for the same—(Hear, hear)— an d the transaction.—(Hear, hear.) Th e y i ncrea sed ro their on 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 large discretionary authority. These commissioners have been much attacked They have,been styled threekings, 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 about 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 Ido not think it was advisable. Had it been proposed I should have felt it my duty to oppose it. Ido not by mean to justify whet mey 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 Comm i t tee or t h e conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, Ido tint think it was competent ih them to tbrm an opinion of the circara- FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 21, 1847. 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 commissioners. 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 conceive that the different offices can be satisfactorily filled unless such powers are placed in the hands of the different departments. 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 must say, I cannot say that such a Committee had any such experience of the conduct or proceedings of the gentlemen in question as to give a just and correct opi nion. —(Hear.) But it is further stated that Mr. Chad wick has said that there was a division between him and the whole of the Poor-law Commissioners, because 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 I do so, I find them meagre in the extreme. Mr. Parker says that he complained of the state of the workhouse accounts in 1843, and had done so on several occasions since. To this it was mentioned to him ; at the time he first named it, that a Bill was about to be iutroduced on the sub ect, and that he had better refrain from doing any thing till he saw the result. The Bill was given up at the end of that session, and again introduced the session fol lowing. And because this has been so, it is stated by Mr. Parker that the Poor law Commissioners had set their faces against him. flow, on anything so meagre could they make a founda tion for such a charge?—(Hear, hear.) But I must say, if this were so, if the Poor-law Commissioners had set their faces against correcting abuses, it was not fair for 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 dcing their duty.—(Hear, hear.) 1 think it was a great dere liction in them not to have brought the question under the notice of the Secretary of State, if they thought the 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.) I am 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 he 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 convey ing paupers to Manchester, and exposing them to misery and starvation,—sach 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 costhu e s s p in e s t e h n i t B e v i l e l g s z s w t to c d t ehscerryteh s e 0 planfar t p h r e o sa o n s e c pd t o i n n of the House as to allow this Bill to be read a second rethheeratrhere should be any central control— )--and here we must first ask the i d l w ri e weah have any central control at all, should we Commissioners to expose and leave a sizitih l um li ues f l the Poor- law the law to be administered by the unions and the board of guardians, and in those unions leave each board of g uardians to exer c i se i ts own discretion as to t h e mo d e of administering Poor-law Amendment of 1830. The result of the dis h') i o e o h r , seemingly and i likewise tie Poor-law of Elizabeth and the dis cussions in this House, shows that there should be some central control. I think such a system desirable, both in order to prevent occurrencethe tthepreventto o the the poor is most injurious to the independent labourer of Veis 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 w i f s a c vo t u o rab le 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 find 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 t heir 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 ren ewe d strength, find and in a few years we should ndourselves i n a no better position than in t he year 1830 when that s y stem of i indulgence and liberality ended u rural insurrection, and setting fire to farm hous e s du r ing 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 aro 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 brought 'nig that he thoueht it in the Bill, his say in!} desirable to i re move the Poor-law Commkts them ers from all party or po lical connexion, and ma h a body separate, as it were, f ro m the influence of party and politics. I be here I knew what in duced him to take that view; I 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 co mmissioners should Poor-laws. I have the direction of the stated my views Lord ' on the subject to Althorp and I succeeded in persuading L ord Althorp to abandon any plan placing the Secretary of St ate in the Commission. I had hoped that the removal from party struggle, that the choice, of the Poor - law Commissioners, solely with a reference to their fitness and adapta tion for the office, an d without any regard to their party and political a ttachments 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 supported 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 had been himself the real of fender. The fact, however, has indeed been that in every instance, whatever Government has been in power 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 snpposed to be ne cessary. We have had certainly freedom from party squabbles, but from the year 1834 to 1847, with some few exceptions, with the leaders of party in this or the other House of Parliament, the Poor-law has not been made a political question out of doors. But the question then arises whether, as it has been necessary for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to become aware of all that the Poor-law Commissioners had to do, is it not better that the person who has guided that machinery, who has directed and dictated its decision, should 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 experi 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 from being in a great degree responsible for its actions, but does prevent full inquiry and discussion in this House, which it is so desirable should be gone into. For these reasons we are about to try that which we now propose. You see I have stated two plans, the one re quiring a defence on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the other a direct representative of the Poor-law Commissioners in this House, and in principle the two plans are identical. They are both connected with the poor-law administration and with Government —both liable to all the objections of being calculated to excite party opposition, and, by that means, get party and Government support to that which Members: of this House might otherwise see reason to object to.—(Hear, hear.) I confess, however, that, notwithstanding these points—being persuaded that you must make some cen tral control—being persuaded that the system upon which we have gone since 1834 has been greatly and seriously defective, and that defect has been injusious both to the Government and Poor-law Commis sioners—that the Government have suffered from that which they did not originate—that the Poor-law Commissioners have suffered for acts of which the whole history 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 department of the Government. I come then to the further ques tion, whether we ought to connect it with an existing department ? I own I think the Secretary of State for the Home Department has, with the powers of Secretary of State, the various businesses that have been imposed upon him by Acts passed within the last few years—the attention he must give to all the other business of the Cabinet, both foreign and domestic—the attention he must give to all the business of this House—he has suffi cient, if not more than sufficient, to absorb the whole of his time and attention without connecting him specially and solely with the administration of the Poor-law. If that be the case, we must have another secretary, or another board. I confess I have no great reverence for one plan or the other, but I do not think the plan we have proposed, if liable to the objections that were stated against it by the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire, 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 required, in order tolform proper opinions upon points connected with the poor-law ; but still being members of the board, they would feel themselves bound to defend particular decisions. I do not think the plan is open to that objection. It is in fact only adopting 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, ra ther of detail—a matter rather to be considered i n 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 far easier for the Go vernment, when every parish depository decided upon every questiou 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 hare attempted to make a great social change in the adminis tration of the poor-law • we having attempted in 1834 to re form 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 w9rk 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 iu 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 Elisabeth 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 I do 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 a dministration 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 certaia 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.) Arr. B. DISRAELI regretted the lateness of the evening, but hoped that ho 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 liament.—(Hear, hear.) It was very . tsar _ that in doing so there mi g ht be a oertam inf usi o n of passion and as occasional interposition o f factions sentiments. but without the interference of Par• iismient 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 re sulted 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*reosostehsen, to bring the eentral control into Parlilnt' suppose a labourer felt aggrieved inmaremote parish, from an d that he did not get redress the poor-law was brought what was the ne xt ste p ? The case brought before Parliament; and who, he would 's ask, w as responsible for that? Why, her MajyMi nisters. It was very well for the Noble Lord to say that party feeling had never y et cre p t into the dis cussions on this subject. But he apprehended that time might arise and c ircumstances might occur when the g reat principles involved in this question would degene rate into a party s truggle.—(Hear, hear.). With regard to the Bill itself, he did not find fault with it, because of the increase of patronage it gave to the Crown; for be maintained that the amount of taxation, and the reduc tion 'of privileges, had always in this country borne a proportion to the decrease of patronage.—(Hear.) But he objected to it, and objected most earnestly, to that which still further made the parochial constitution of this country the Parliamentary constitution. The moment that they had a Poor-law Minister in that House —the moment that parochial affairs were brought into that House—all that time which was at present devoted to railways—all the time which was devoted to private busi ness—would be otherwise consumed, and none left for those purposes when they had converted the Members into a parochial--(Loud cries of " Time, time.") The Hon. Member said the quarter was not yet exhausted. — (Ironical cheers.) There was one other topic which he wished much to avoid ; it had nothing to do with this question. Why it was introduced into the discussion was no matter of his ; but it was enough that no o :le in the course of the debate had avoided mention of the A:3 - clover Union Committee.— (Hear.) He was a member of that Committee, and he wished to make one remark upoa the subject. The Noble Lord himself, with the ability which distinguished him, referred to the members of the Andover Committee. That Committee lasted for a considerable time—he believed for a space of nearly four months. It represented every section of opinion in regard to the law itself. But he was bound to say that various as that opinion was, and strong as was their conviction, he believed that every member was satisfied—impressed with the deep conviction that the result of that investigation was beneficial to the public. But the Noble Lord said he would not listen to those accusations when he found an officer had so forgotten his duty, that an officer was so chargeable with derelic tion that in an underhand manner he should be discovered creating a factitious public opinion against his chiefs—he would not hear anything that made against the Poor-law Commissioners. He (Mr. Disraeli) thought, and he admitted there was a great deal of truth in what the Noble Lord said on that head. But could they then believe that such a man as Mr. Chadwick was still at the board of the poor-law?— (Loud and ironical cheers.) Though the Noble Lord (John Russell) nodded his head as insinuating that to be the case, he yet could not believe it.—(Renewed cheers.) He ha.l heard a gentleman who had been a Poor-law Commissioner, and had a great distaste for family honours, himself the father of a head Commissioner—( !tear and laughter) —say, that Mr. Chadwick was a dangerous person—a most dangerous person to the Poor-law Corn missioners.—(lronical cheers.) Having heard Mr. Chad wick denounced by one of the Commissioners—(Hear and laughter)---by the father of a head Commissioner— (lncreased laughter)—Sir Frankland Lewis ; having heard him denounced by the Noble Lord, but for whom they might not have had the Andover Union Committee or this Bill, he could not believe that he was still at the board.—(Great cheering and laughter.) What state secret was he the depositary of that he was still there ? (Renewed ironical cheers.) If the Noble Lord had con descended to leave his red box, and gone to the green table with a few plain men like himself, and there, with pen and paper, taken close notes of evidence, he might have come to a different conclusion. He had heard that gentleman make statements which he received as evidence. But they had heard that gentleman characterised as poisoning the fountains of all truth. If a different spec tacle had been presented that night, and if he had seen the Noble Lord rise that night and say that he would take upon himself the disgrace anti the odium of one who, to the extent of his abilities, had served him—if he had done so, although at the moment of dissolution, and on the eve of a general election, he (Mr. Disraeli) would have admired the Noble Lord that night as one who would not desert an old servant at the moment of attack. —(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord was willing to benefit by the services of a man whom he denounced. Yes, the Noble Lord required a scape- goat and a victim; and, he said, I am obliged to make a Secretary of State with two secretaries, on account of the underhand proceed ings of the secretary of the Poor-law Commis sioners. Yet that man remained at that moment secre tary at the Poor law Commissioners' board--(Cheers.) lie knew him but by his works—his works on the sana tory state of the country, and in treating of that subject, the only places he appears to have passed were his own office and the secret recesses of the Cabinet. The House should remember that that Committee was called under very peculiar circumstances. As regarded this Bill, it was to be considered only as a Bill for the re construction of central control, to which they all agreed. Let the House zicT forget the peculiar circumstances under which this Bill was brought forward. When these charges were made against the members of the Andover Committee, he felt bound to remind the House of the circumstances under which that Committee laboured. His Hon. Friend the Member for Peter borough had put into his hand a resolution which was adopted with the joint approbation of the Committee, and which, as it was very brief, he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The Noble Lord the chair man of that Committee had stated to him personally the reason why he had voted against that resolution, namely that he could not agree in the latter part. The resolu don, stated that the conduct of the Commissioners Messrs. Parker and Day was not in accordance with the statute under which they exercised their functions, and was such as was calculated to shake public con fidence in the administration of the law. That resolution was agreed to by a large majority. As to their conduct being irregular and arbitrary, which referred to a matter of fact. Now, of those Gentlemen who bad spoken that evening, not one pretended that their proceedings was not irregular. Whether they were arbitrary, was a matter for the consideration of the Committee, who decided that they were. The Noble Lord, to whom he had referred, agreed, in his opinion. with the Committee on that point, but stated he could not do so with respect to that part of the resolution which asserted that they had not acted in conformity with the statute. But by that statute they were bound to keep records, and the evidence brought before the Committee proved that they had not kept any records, but that a person in his private room conducted the whole business, who, in fact, was only scribbling his own memoranda.—(Hear, hear.) To show that public con fidence was shaken by the administration of the Com missioners, was it necessary for him to bring any evi dence on that subject. That resolution was not, be asserted, an intemperate, but on the contrary, a mode rate resolution, founded upon fact, after duly weighing the evidence before the Committee. No one entering upon that inquiry could help arriv ing at the same conclusion to which the Com mittee had arrived, and no one except by loose assertion had challenged that conclusion, or challenged that resolution. He would now say a few words with respect to an individual because he had no friend in that House except himself. That gentleman's name had been brought forward in a most unnecessary and wanton manner. He was not going to support Mr. Day because he happened to be an intimate acquaintance of his. He certainly knew him as a man of attainments and a good scholar, and he knew nothing against him without it was that he was a widower.--(Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL—What I said was that he had not a freehold. Mr. DISRAELI—Why, the Prime Minister had not a freehold, but they had no means of removing him without telling him the reason. The Noble Lord said himself that no man ought to be dismissed unless he conducted his business in such a manner as was unsatis factory to his employers. Why Mr. Day was dismissed without any reason being assigned, and that not even in an official manner. The manner in which Mr. Day was appointed was as follows:—He had not a public friend in the world, but he published a pamphlet before the reform of the old law was contemplated, and he reformed his own parish on the principle of the 43d of Elizabeth, he described the reforms which he effected in that pamphlet. Having no public friend, it was the last effort of a desperate man; for every one who ever wrote a pamphlet must admit that no one ever read it. In 1831, when the Government introduced their plan, they were looking out for clever men, who, to use the fashionable language of that House, could carry out their system, a Noble Lord, resident in the county to which Mr. Day belonged, said there is a distinguished country magistrate who reformed his own parish see to him, he has written a pamphlet. The pamphlet was sent to the Minister, who read it. Mr. Day was sent for, was offered the post, which he accepted, and he became a zealous officer.—(Hear hear.) He was sent to that part of the kingdom which was declared wholly and the most incapable of reform, South Wales.—(Hear, be ar.)_e He did reform it. Was it any wonder, however, that how ever, a should have become unpopul ar ? In h l a b ou rs , he broke his leg, and when he had recovered, he wrote a note, to say that he was still prepared to resume his labours. In reply to that communica tion, he received a letter, marked private, which advised him as a friend to send in his resignation, Now in all this there was a great deal of hardship and arbi trary conduct. Mr. Day had broken up his establish ment in his county, where, on a moderate income, he supported a large family. He zealously conducted the duties of his office, accomplished what was admitted to be a most difficult task, and received a compound frac ture in the service of Government, yet this was his reward, after all.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Day was accused of unpopularity, which was hardly possible, for him to be otherwise, but Mr. Day brought credentials from every board of guardians which he had been brought into connexion with, all expressing their condo lence with him, and their confidence in him. He (Mr. Disraeli) could not refrain from mentioning these facts. And now, with regard to the Bill itself, looking at it merely in comparison with the present system of control, he was not disposed to say that it might not be an im provement, it might or it might not ; he, however, would give the Government the advantages f believing _ a t e ha r t on a vicious system it was an improvement.—(H ear, hear.) And so far as that went, h e be inclined to support it; but looking as he did the system of metropoli tan country this pernici Bill as one meant to perpetuate on , th s e o ous, and which had broug ht a f he would vote for the control, which he believed l t to the e e e fi v o il f s a o ta n l which had been complained o for nares orough. Mr. P. BORTHW ICK moved the adjournment of th e amendment of the Hon. Member ' K b debate. Lord J. R USSELL said that he hoped they would fin ish the debate that nig ht. Mr. FERR AND ssa d, that after the speech which had by e the measure. Noble The Lord, h i o t n. was Memberrlist y was determined to answer it, an d h e, for his part, was determined to offer every o p pos i t i on to her Majesty's to been preys e s s made t h Government, if they attempted so unconstitutionally to press the second reading.—(Hear, and cries of" On.") And now, as to a question personal to himself, he desired that the Noble Lord would explain what statements of his were unfounded which he made on Monday last; he al luded especially to those statements which he had made in reference to the manufacturing districts. He asked the Noble Lord to stand tip in his place and state what was the statement he had made. Mr. VILLIERS said he had stated that they toe]; peasants Cron) the agricultural districts, and sold thei as slaves in the manufacturing districts. He said also, that they murdered children in the - workhouses. These were two of his misstatements, and the House need wait no longer. Lord JOHN RUSSELL paid these two were state- them unfounded still. /32 - e made n o attack on the ments which he believed w.c..re nnfora nded, and did b e li eve Gentleman's statements ,were so characteris e d Honourable Gentleman's c haracter. But when the by passion, when be represented that . the Poor-law Commissioners deli3Ohted in the muruer of children—(Great laughter)—he was but justified in saying they were unfounded. Mr. FEHRAND denied the staten. , ents attributed to him. He did not say that the Commis, 4ioners delighted in murderin g children.—(Cries of " Din, le.") Strang j e o rs n w N er ß e u oi s d s e E re L d L to s w ai i d th , as dra s w om , wehe n. Members Lord wished still to sp ea k, an d if H on. Members . would not postpone the debate over to-morrow night, h.e would consent to the debate being adjourned. The debate was then adjourned. HERRING FISHER:Y (SCOTLAND) BILL. H 'his Ei r BiII TA , l L w E a s read a SECURITIES second time. FOR DEBT (SCOT- LAND) BILL s read a third ti me an d passed. TENURE (SCOTLAND) BUJ.. T B h u is ß ß G ill A w d . E ' This Bill was also read a third tim e and passed. CROWN CHAR'I7ERS (SCOTLAND) BIT.L. This Bill was read a tLird tune and pas se d. PASSENGERS ACT A MENDMENT BILL. Mr. HAWES moved that the H ouse go int o Co.'n mittee on this Bill. It was a very i mportant measure;.. and should be passed as soon as pcssible, as it wa s mainly to protect passengers. The House then went into Committee. Upon Clause 1 being proposed, Lord G. BENTINCK said that at the request of the shipping interest of Liverpool, he would move several amendments on the Bill, which it would, perhaps - , be as well that he should state at once to the Committee, In the first' clause be proposed to move—page 2, line 15, after " tons," insert " having a space/ of fourteen superficial feet to each person." Page - 3 . lisle 7, after "hatchway," insert " provided wit` e ladders and protected by a companion hatch fitted with sliding top and side doors." Line 24, after' " ship," insert " having a space of fourteen superficial feet." Page 4, line 10, leave out " fourteen," and insert " eight." Line 16, leave out "in the said recited Act mentioned," and insert "of one person to every four teen feet, including berths and personal luggage." After clause 5, he proposed the insertion of clause C, the object of which was, that the seaworthiness of the ship should be ascertained by survey. And be it further enacted, That to remove doubts as to the seaworthiness of any vessel about to proceed with passengers, as afore said, the acting government emigration officer shall cause such ship to be surveyed by two duly autho rised and responsible surveyors, and if it shall be reported by those persons that such ship is not in their opinion in a state of repair and efficiency as would entitle such ship or vessel to be classed in Lloyd's Registry of British and Foreign Shipping,. 2E 1, such ship or vessel shall not be cleared out. Then, after clause C he proposed to add a clause D, providing that in the event of wreck or unseaworthiness, the passengers were to have another conveyance pro vided for them or to be indemnified. The clause would be as follows :—And be it enacted, that in case any ship carrying passengers on any such voyage as in the said recited Act is mentioned, shall be wrecked or otherwise destroyed, and shall thereby or by any other cause what soever be prevented from landing her passengers at the place they may have respectively contracted to land ; or in case such ship shall put into any port or place in a damaged state, and shall not within a reasonable time be ready to proceed with her passengers on her intended. voyage after having been first efficiently repaired, and in all respects put into a sound and seaworthy condition, then and in any of such cases they:alien be provided with a passage by some other equally eligible vessel, to tho port or place at which they respectively may have originally contracted to land ; and in default thereof; within a reasonable time, such passengers respectively shall be entitled to recover by summary process, before any two or more justices of the peace, in like manner as in the said r ec it e d A c t i s provided in the cases of moneys thereby made recoverable, all moneys which shall have been paid by or on account of such pas sengers or any of them, for such passage, from the party to whom the same may have been paid, as from the owner, charterer, or master of such ship; and also such further sum not exceeding 5/. in respect of each such passage, as shall in the opinion of the jus tices who shall adjudicate on the complaint be a reasonable conpensation for any loss or inconve nience occasioned to any such passenger, or his or her family, .by reason of the loss of such passage.. The last was the most important amendment. It was to provide that in all cases where a ship was lost, the owners should return the passage money, or provide the passengers with another passage. This would in volve an additional expense of Is. 6d. per passenger for insurance ; but he was quite sure, with such a guaran tee, the passengers would readily pay that charge. Mr. HAWES objected to assimilate the measurement of English ships with American, as that would have the effect of putting impediments in the way of the emigration now in progress from Ireland and this coun try. He hoped, therefore, his Noble Friend would not: press his amendment. Ve ith regard to the survey pro posed by the Noble Lord, the present law provided for that, as no ship could convey passengers without a cer tificate of her seaworthiness ; and this, he apprehended, was a sufficient guarantee of security. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would see that the amendments suggested were unnecessary. He hoped the Noble Lord would allow the Bill to go through Committee, and move again the clauses he might feel it necessary to have inserted on the bringing up of the report. Lord G. BENTINCK said he could not give way on the clauses referring to surveying. He would agree that the Bill should go through Committee, and so much of it be confirmed as did not bear upon the surveying, and on the bringing up of the report, he would move his clauses. Mr. HUDSON concurred with the Noble Lord in the desirableness of the survey. On clause ten, Sir G. CLERK thought there ought to be some scale of boats adopted in the Bill for the security of passen gers. It mattered not whether they adopted the scale of last year or the year previous, but some scale in propor tion to the passengers ought to be adopted in the Bill. The clauses were agreed to, the Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be reported on Monday week. The House then resumed, the other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) THU RSDAY. MA! 20. CUSTOMS. Acts read; Motion made, and Question put, " That this House will resolve itself into a Committee on the said Acts, for the purpose of assimilating the warehousing privileges on Colonial and British Spirits." The House divided:— MINORITY—AYES, 51. BaMie, Col. Feilden, Sir W. Marton. G. Baillie, IL:J. Forbes, William 3lolesworth, Sir IF. Baillie, W. Fuller, A. E. Norreys, Sir D. Baine, Walter Gordon, Admiral O'Connell, M. J. Barkly, Henry Hallyburton, Lord Palmer, R. Bennet, Philip Halsey, T. P. Pattison, James Bentinek, Lord G. Hamilton, Lord C. Rashleigh, William Blackstone, W. S. Hodgson, Richard Ross, D. R. Bouverie, E. P. Hope, Sir J. Sandon, Viscount Browne, R. D. Houldsworth, T. Sheppard, T. Buck, L. W. Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Trelawny, J. S. Crawford, W. S. Jones, Captain Turner, Edmund Dennistoun, John Lockhart, A. E. Wakl - ey, Thomas Diyett, E. Lockhart, W. Watson, W. H. Drummond, 11. Mackenzie, W. F. Williams, W. Duncan, George Macnamara, Major TZLLSZS. Duncombe, Thomas M`Carthy, Alex. Moffatt, George 1 Ewart, William Manners, Lord J. Hume, Joseph MAJORITY-NOES, 56. Baring,"F. T. Graham, Sir James Richards, Richard Barrington, Viscount Grey, Sir G. Russell, Lord John Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, W. J. Rntherfurd, A. Bramston, T. W Hodgson, F. *krone, G. P. Brotherton, Joseph Hogg, Sir J...W. Shell, B. L. Buller, Edward Hussey, T. Smith, Vernon Carew, W. P. Inglis, Sir R. Somerset, Lord G. cripps, Willi a m Jervis, Sir John Sotheron, T. H. Davies, D. A. Lemon, Sir C. &wasteld, W. B. C. Denison, W. J. Loch, James Strait, Edward Denison, J. K. Macaulay, T. B. Tancred, H. W. Dodd, George Mitcalfe, Henry Thornely, T. Duncombe, A. Monahan, J. H. Troubridge, Sir E. 3 2d l o u rr nd is y , , D E a . v N i l d Vivian, Capt. E. Wood, sir Charles Dundas, Sir David Eecott, Bickham Forster, Matthew O'Brien, A. Stafford Wrightson, W. B. Gardner, J. D. Ogle, S. C. Gaskell, J. M. Pakington, Sir J. S. TELLEILS, Gladstone, J. N. Patten, J. W. Parker, John Goring, Charles Powell, Colonel Berkeley, Craven EXCISE. Acts read; Motion made, and Question put, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee on the said Acts, for the purpose of permitting British Spirits to be rectified in bond for exportation, and permitting Rectified Spirits and Compounds to be viarehoused for exportation." The House divided:— MINORITY—AYES, 56. Lockhart, W. D u ncombe, T. brCarthy, Alexandel R , Adderley, C. B. F ar nham, E. M'Taggart, Sir J. BaiHie, William Fellden, Sir W. a Walter B Ferguson, Sir R. Manners, Lord I. anke ins s, George Forbes, W. Marten, G. BarklY. He nr y , L o r d n Fuller, A. E. Molesworth, air W. Beutinck '''''" ii" Gisborne, Thomas Neeld, Joseph Bl " k".°ne 'E W• • Gordon, Admiral Newport,:Visct. Bouverie. ' P ' B r owne, K. D. Hallyhurton, Lord O'B r i en, A. S. B r uce, C. L. C. Hamilton, Lord C. O'Connell. J. Buck, Lewis W. Haste, Archibald Sheppard,, T. M Burroughes. H. Henley, J. W. Spooner, Richard Carnegie, Captain Hodgson, It. Trelawny, J. S. Collett, John Hope, Sir .7. Wakley, Thomas Crawford, W. S. Rouldsworth, T. Walsh, Sir J. B. Dennistoun, J. liumphery, Aid. Yorke, E. T. Disraeli, B. Ingestre, Visct. Divett, Edward Jollitte, Sir W G. IL TELLERS. Drummond, H. H. Jones, Captain Moffatt, George Duncan, George Lockhart .`A. E. Hume, Joseph MAJORITY-NOES, 63. Baillle, Colonel Grey, Sir G. Romilly, John Baring, F. T. Grosvenor, Lord R. Russell, Lord J. Barrington, Viscount Hawes, B. RuthertUrd, A. Bellew, R. M. Hodgson, F. Scrope, G. P. Berkeley, Craven Ilogg, Sir J. Shell, R. L. liorthwick, Peter Hussey, Thomas Shelburne, Earl of Bowles, Admiral Inglis, Sir R. Sheridan, R. B. Bramston, T. W. Jervis, Sir John Smith, A. , Brozherton, Jeseph Lemon, Sir Charles Smith, R. V. Carew, W. H. Pole Lygon, General Somers, J. P. Denison, W. J. Macaulay, T. it. Stansueid, W. It. Denison, J. E. Alangles, K.D.:: Stanton, W. H. Dodd, G. Marjoribank 6,:ii. Stria t. Edward Buncombe, A. Marshall, W. Tancred, H. W. Dundas, Sir David Mitealte, H. Thornely, T. F.scott, Bickhana Monahan, J. H. Troubridge, Sir E. Forster, Mathew Morris, David Ward, 11. G. Gardner, J. D. Ogle, S. C. Wood, Sir Charles Gaskell, J. Id. Pakington, Sir J. Wrightson, W. B. Gladstone, Captain POllllll, F. TELLERS. Gore, Robert Richards, Richard Tufnell, H, , Graham, Sir James Rice, E. R. Parker, John FOUR DAYS or ErsoAl RACES, WITH A PORTRAIT or COISACTL—The very extensive publication of Bell's Life in London will commence, at No. 170, Strand, two hours earlier than usual, namely, at ten o'clock on Saturday morn ing, instead of twelve, for this week only.