The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-03 00:00:00

POOR-LAN ADMINISTRATION BILL.

On the motion that the house resolve itself into committee
on this bill,
Lord BROUGHAM objected to that provision of the bill
which gave the chief commissioner a seat in parliament.
The noble lord observed that there might be cases of wrong-
doing under the future administration of the poor-law,
which, although not meriting the dismissal of the parties
concerned, would justify and even call for parliamentary
inquiry and consequent censure. The bill before the house
proposed with that view the nomination of a poor-law
board, one of the members of which was to have a seat in
either of the two houses of the legislature, so that when it
was necessary he might be present to answer for the conduct
of his department. If this plan were to be carried into
effect, it would be necessary to have an entirely new de-
partment of state quite separate from the Home-office,
inasmuch as the Secretary for the Home Department
would not be able to attend to the details of the poor-law
administration. The objection to which this scheme was
principally open consisted in the circumstance that it would
at once convert the poor-law department into a moveable
one, dependent on party divisions, end upon the parlia-
mentary ilia:north of the government of which it was • por-
tion. 'the poor-law would never have fair play if such a
course was adopted, and the measure before the house would
consequently be entirely useless. In stating the feelings
which be entertained en the subject, be bad more than
doubts—he had very strong objections to making the poor-
law administrators dependent on party arrangements or
party votes. But if, on the contrary, it woe considered indis-
pensable to make the poor-law commissioner an adjunct to
the ministers, thee the only mode of guarding against the
evils which he had pointed out would be to constitute a
member of their lordships' house the representative of that
department in parliament.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the noble lord
had admitted, what every person conversant with the subject
had long been convinced of—namely, that the attempt to
carry out the provisions of the poor-law independent of the
parliamentary action of the government, was an utter impos-
sibility. Had it been possible to establish the poor-law ad-
ministration on so high a basis as to render it quite indepen-
dent of vulgar criticism, and to enable its functionaries to
defy the abuse of their assailants, he far one would have been
deeiroua to adhere to the original principle laid down for the
administration of that law, and merely to have strengthened
the actual institution in such a manner ea to give it the force re-
quired. But past experience allowed that such a hope could
not be entertained. Much of the stream of attack directed
against the poor-law authorities as now constituted bad been
founded upon the imputation that they acted in the dark—
that they were a mysterious tribunal—that they were not
exposed to criticism, and could not openly be challenged for
their acts like other departments in the state. He believed
that many of the attacks which had been made would never
have been directed, at least to the Mlle extent, if the officer
at the head of the poor law hail held a seat in parliament;
but if made, he could then efficiently, promptly, and
completely refute them. Though he was happy to my
that but very few acts of the poor-law commissioners had
been made the subject of cavil, yet when explanations had
been necessary, they had been given by circuitous proceed-
, ings, after necessary and great delays, and not with the same
effect that a minister could give on the instant of the attack
in his place in parliament. Then came the question, whether
the minister so appointed ought to be in political connexion
with, or in the confidence of, the government of the day ?
Looking at the history of the establishment of the Board of
Control, and at the delicate functions exercised by the Secre-
tary for the Home Department—functions equally important
with those of the administration of the poor-law—he was
firmly convinced of the policy of the proposition now pro-
posed. He hoped, therefore their lordships would not hesi-
tate to go into committee and eater upou the consideration of
the details of this measure.
Lord BROVUHAM observed that he had omitted to men-
tion a further objection he had to the proposition, which was
that with every change in the government there might pos-
sibly be a change in the eyetem of administering the law.
Lord STANLEY felt that the question was beset with the
most serious difficulties. Among these was the risk of un-
settling the system pursued in this department with every
change of government. It had been found, in framing the
original measure, to be absolutely indispeneable to invest the
poor-law commissioners with powers of • most extraordinary
character—powers of making orders and regulations which
were to have the force and effect of law ; and that being
necessary, he felt now that direct parliamentary reapmed-
bility of the authority in whom those powers were vested was
the best and only cheek upon any possible abuse of those
important fun, lions. (Hear, hear.) H. thought this
would net only be a protection to the poor, whose